Rationale for policy interventions in sustainability transitions
|
|
- Chloe Grant
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Rationale for policy interventions in sustainability transitions Timothy J Foxon Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, U.K. t.j.foxon@leeds.ac.uk From September 2015: SPRU, Jubilee Building, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9SL, U.K. Paper for 6 th International Sustainability Transitions (IST) Conference, SPRU, University of Sussex, August 2015 Abstract A sustainability transition will involve government, market and civil society actors in different roles, though which type of actor plays the dominant role in framing the logic of the transition is likely to influence the form and direction of any transition. In the author s previous work on transition pathways for a UK low carbon electricity system, the implications of this were explored by analysing potential market-led, government-led and civil society-led pathways (Foxon, 2013). Building on that analysis, this paper explores the rationale for policy intervention in sustainability transitions, and the implications of this for realising any of these pathways. Under the current dominant market-led framing, the rationale for policy intervention is typically framed as correcting for market failures, e.g. the UK Government s Carbon Plan states that The Government should help to tackle market failures and unblock barriers to investment to encourage growth in newer technologies (HM Government, 2011, p. 14). This approach starts from the view that markets deliver socially optimal and efficient outcomes, and so governments should only intervene to correct for failures that prevent markets from operating in this way. However, various authors coming from different perspectives have challenged this approach as a basis for action. Innovation system theorists have argued for systems failure as a basis for action (Smith, 2000; Edquist, 2001; Foxon, 2007). For example, Smith (2000) identified four areas of systemic failure, that could provide a rationale for policy intervention: failures in infrastructure provision and investment; transition failures; lock-in failures and institutional failures. Authors from a heterodox economics perspective have similarly argued that the rationale for investment in and valuation of infrastructure requires going beyond traditional market failures relating to externalities, public goods and natural monopolies. Brown et al. (2014) argue that characteristics of long-term infrastructure relating to uncertainty, overlapping and interacting systems, non-marginal effects and endogenous preferences require a more systems based understanding of rationales for policy intervention. Finally, innovation economists have argued that a market failure approach plays down the key role that public investments have played in many recent technological advances, including the internet and smart phones (Mazzucato, 2013). Mazzucato and Penna (2015) argue that a more long term, visionary mission-oriented policy approach is needed for framing policy interventions to meet societal goals, including the large-scale deployment of green technologies. The paper considers the implications of these arguments for policy interventions to promote a sustainable low carbon transition. It argues that the societal challenge of achieving a low carbon transition, and the complexity and systemic nature of changes to energy systems and infrastructures that this implies, requires a more systems based rationale for policy interventions. Finally, it speculates on whether this approach could be incorporated into the business case analysis of new large government funded projects (including strategic, economic, financial, commercial and management aspects of the case), increasingly being used by the UK Treasury (HM Treasury, 2013).
2 1. Introduction Different possible sustainability transition pathways will involve government, market and civil society actors in different roles (Foxon, 2013), though, in any pathway, national governments will play an important in facilitating and/or driving change. This raises the question of the rationale for government action to promote transformative change for sustainability. Under the current dominant political and economic market-led framing, the rationale for policy intervention is typically framed as correcting for market failures, e.g. the UK Government s Carbon Plan states that The Government should help to tackle market failures and unblock barriers to investment to encourage growth in newer technologies (HM Government, 2011, p. 14). However, various authors coming from different perspectives have challenged this approach as a basis for action, and promoted the concept of systems failures as a complement or alternative to the market failure rationale (Bleda and del Rio, 2013). This paper examines these ideas, in relation to the call for a more long term, visionary mission-oriented policy approach for framing policy interventions to meet societal goals, including the large-scale deployment of green technologies (Mazzucato and Penna, 2015). Finally, it considers whether it recent broadening of the rationale used by the UK Treasury to evaluate the business case for new large government funded projects (including strategic, economic, financial, commercial and management aspects of the case) (HM Treasury, 2013) could provide an opportunity for the greater incorporation of systems thinking into government decision making and rationales for action to promote a sustainability transition. This draws on the author s earlier thinking, with colleagues, on a systems approach to sustainability innovation (Foxon et al., 2005a,b; Foxon, 2007; Foxon and Pearson, 2008), including a paper presented at the SPRU 40 th Anniversary conference (Foxon, 2006). 2. Systems thinking for sustainability transitions As discussed by Dodgson et al. (2011), despite the development of the National Innovation Systems (NIS) concept and its increasing use by international organisations such as the OECD, systems thinking is less applied in practice to inform innovation policy at a national level. This is partly due to the continuing dominance of neo-classical economic thinking, particularly amongst national treasuries, but also as the clarity of market failure justifications contrasts markedly with rather nebulous innovation system approaches (Dodgson et al., 2011, p. 1146). The market failure rationale argues that, conditions of perfect competition would lead to an efficient and socially optimal allocation of resources in an economy, and so policy intervention is only justified when these conditions fail to hold. Two widely accepted failures relate to the public good nature of knowledge (Arrow, 1962), and the problem of negative externalities, such as social and environmental impacts, that are not incorporated into market prices. This leads to justification for policy measures to increase investment in R&D for the production of new knowledge, and for internalisation of externalities, for example, by pricing carbon emissions through a tax or trading scheme. However, from the perspective of innovation systems as complex evolving systems, this provides an inadequate justification for action, as it neglects institutional factors, networking between actors, and fundamental uncertainties relating to innovation. It also implicitly assumes that these interventions are merely aiming to restore the efficient workings of markets, and that socially optimal outcomes simply reflect the sum of individual preferences. It leaves no space for the steering or guiding of innovation processes towards socially agreed goals, such as sustainability. Thus, a systems thinking perspective on innovation seems to be more compatible with justifying government action for the promotion of a sustainability transition. Useful work has done in this area examining technological innovation systems (TIS) for renewable energy technologies, in particular justifying policy actions to address systems failures in these systems (Foxon et al., 2005a), or to ensure the fulfilment of functions shown to be necessary for successful innovation systems (Jacobsson and Bergek, 2004; Bergek et al., 2008). However, this work does not enable a wider perspective on the role that innovation plays in economic systems, such as arguments relating to job creation, or to address how more strategic policy interventions should be justified to promote socially agreed goals, whilst trading off multiple social, environmental and economic aims.
3 Building on the evolutionary economic concept of socio-economic systems as complex, evolutionary and knowledge-based (Dopfer and Potts, 2008, 2009), Bleda and del Rio (2013) argue that policy interventions are justified to address systemic failures relating to knowledge coordination and knowledge creation. Deep and surface knowledge coordination failures relate to failures to coordinate necessary changes in institutions or behavioural practices with new technologies, such as changes in user routines needed for the adoption of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, or failures in learning and adaptation processes that prevent the diffusion of a new technology. Knowledge creation failures would be addressed by keeping these knowledge coordination structures open to further development and change. This view thus puts greater emphasis on the need for policy actions to promote complementary institutional changes and enhancement of actors capabilities to respond to and drive change through entrepreneurial and adaptive activities. This gives a richer perspective for action, but further work is needed to show how this approach could inform particular policy interventions. As Bleda and del Rio (2013) acknowledge, these knowledge coordination failures for new technologies due to misaligned technical, organisational or institutional rules provides a similar, complementary perspective to that of misalignments between niche innovations and socio-technical regimes in the multi-level perspective on transitions (Geels, 2002). Weber and Rohracher (2012) also suggest combining insights from innovation systems and multilevel perspective in a comprehensive failures framework to provide justification for policies to promote transformative change. They propose that four types of market failure: information asymmetries, knowledge spill-over, externalisation of costs and over-exploitation of commons, and four types of system failure, identified from an innovation systems perspective (Woolhuis et al., 2005): infrastructural failure; institutional failures; interaction or network failures; and capabilities failure, should be complemented by four types of transformational failures, relating to goal-oriented transformative change. These are directionality failure, relating to specification of the direction of transformative change; demand articulation failure, relating to lacking of attention to user needs to enable the uptake of new innovations; policy coordination failure, relating to a lack of coordination between innovation and other policies, such as sectoral policies or tax policies; and reflexivity failure, relating to the need for an open and discursive approach to address complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity inherent to innovation and change. There are clearly overlaps and complementarities here with the concepts of knowledge coordination failures and knowledge creation failures proposed by Bleda and del Rio, which could usefully be explored. There appears to be a risk, though, that this perspective could again be criticised for providing an unclear guide for policy actions, compared to the relative simplicity of the market failure framework. As Weber and Rohracher (2012) acknowledge, the whole formulation in terms of failures is problematic, as it suggests comparison to an ideal market or system, but they argue that the notion of failures is so pervasively used in policy-making as well as in economics that it would be very challenging to use a completely different language (Weber and Rohracher, 2012, p. 1042). This suggests that policy guidance for promoting transformative change may well need to challenge fundamental concepts and language, rather than being presented in terms of a more general failures framework. 3. Alternative rationales for policy interventions In this section, we discuss three alternative rationales for policy interventions to promote sustainability transitions: innovation systems failures ; systems of provision failures and mission oriented policy approach. This aims to identify useful building blocks for an alternative approach to guiding transformative change for sustainability from a complex evolving system perspective Innovation systems failures As discussed above, the systems of innovation approach leads naturally to a rationale for policy intervention based on systems failures. This was clearly articulated by Edquist (2001), who argued that systems failures may be defined in terms of two conditions for public intervention in a market economy:
4 (a) a problem must exist, i.e. a situation in which market mechanisms and firms fail to achieve objectives that have been socially-defined, through a public policy process; and (b) the state and its agencies must also have the ability to solve or mitigate the problem effectively (i.e. the issue of potential government and bureaucratic failure must be addressed). This would still seem to be a useful starting point. To apply this in practice, Edquist (2001) advocated undertaking concrete empirical and comparative analyses of innovation systems to identify systems failures that could be rectified. Similarly drawing on innovation systems approaches, K. Smith (2000) identified, in addition to market failures relating to the under-provision of knowledge, four areas of systemic failure, which could provide a rationale for policy intervention: (1). Failures in infrastructure provision and investment: Both physical infrastructures, such as for energy and communications, and science-technology infrastructures, such as universities, technical institutes and regulatory agencies, are important parts of innovation systems. However, because of their large scale, indivisibilities and very long time horizons of operation, they are unlikely to be sufficiently provided by private investors, and so there is a case for public support for infrastructure provision. (2). Transition failures : Because existing firms, especially small firms, are necessarily quite limited in their technological capabilities and horizons, they are likely to experience great difficulties in responding to technological changes. These changes may be due to developments outside firms area of expertise, changes in technological opportunities or patterns of demand which push the market into new areas of technology, or major shifts in technological regimes or paradigms. Public policies may be used to help firms to cope with such changes. (3). Lock-in failures: Path dependence, leading to lock-in of existing technologies, arises because of system or network externalities, combined with the fact that technologies are closely linked to their social and economic environment. Hence, new technologies must compete not only with components of an existing technology, but with the overall system in which it is embedded. Similarly, industries and socio-economic systems can get locked-in to a particular technological paradigm. This requires public policies to generate incentives for new technologies or technological systems, and to overcome barriers created by the prevalence of incumbent technology or system. (4). Institutional failures: The set of public and private institutions, regulatory systems and the policy system creates a framework of opportunities and barriers to innovation by firms. Hence, the performance of these institutions and systems in regard to innovation should be monitored and assessed, and if they are judged to be creating unnecessary barriers, this would provide a rationale for policy changes or interventions. These failures most clearly relate to systems failures in the Weber and Rohrachher (2015) framework, but the transition failures are more aligned to the transformational directionality failure.
5 3.2. Systems of provision failures Authors from a heterodox economics perspective have similarly argued that the rationale for investment in and valuation of infrastructure requires going beyond traditional market failures relating to externalities, public goods and natural monopolies. Drawing on a systems of provision framework (Fine, 2002; Bayliss et al., 2013), Brown et al. (2014) argue that characteristics of longterm infrastructure, which give rise to problems with investment in and valuation of infrastructure, require a more systems based understanding of rationales for policy intervention. These include: (1) Systematicity: Infrastructure is identified as those systems or networks that provide goods and services that are in some sense basic or fundamental; that is, they are necessary for economic activity to take place and for people to participate in society (Brown and Robertson, 2014, p. 8). This commonly includes systems for provision of energy, water, mobility, housing services etc, which typically consist of both physical components, e.g. pipes and wires, and institutional components, e.g. market and regulatory frameworks, designed to enable effective and efficient provision of these services to users. Because of physical and institutional interconnectivities and the public good (largely nonrival and non-excludable ) nature of this provision, Brown et al. (2014) argue that infrastructure is best understood as a system of systems serving the wider socioeconomic system as a whole, rather than any one private actor. This implies that infrastructure investment requires systems-level rather than individual project-based appraisal. (2) Uncertainty: Uncertainty is particular relevant for infrastructure investment because of the long duration of most infrastructure usage. In a neo-classical perspective, uncertainty is usually understood as calculable risk, in which it is possible to assign probabilities to future events. In the 1930s, Knight argued that, in many cases, investment and innovation involves deep or fundamental uncertainty, in which it is not possible to anticipate or assign probabilities to future events. This distinction was taken up by Keynes, in his argument that investors follow their animal spirits, i.e. intuition and guesswork, because the future is fundamentally uncertain. (3) Non-marginal effects: The systemic character of infrastructure means that it can be thought of as a bridge between micro and macro level economic analyses. This means that infrastructure may have non-marginal effects, i.e. influencing macro level variables, such as the rate of economic growth, as well as micro level variables, relating to allocation within the economy. This can be seen in agglomeration effects, i.e. efficiencies that arise from clustering of economic activities, enabled by infrastructure provision. A particularly relevant example for sustainability transitions is that of climate change mitigation, where growth paths may be influenced by investment in low carbon technologies and systems. This suggests the need for analysis of dynamic and systemic efficiency, rather than static efficiency. (4) Endogenous preferences: Standard valuation techniques such as stated or revealed preferences, based on neo-classical approaches, assume that user preferences are fixed and exogenous. However, over the long lifecycle of infrastructure, it is likely that preferences, norms and cultures of consumption are moulded by what is provided. The phenomenon of suburbanisation in the 1950s and 1960s shows how preferences relating to mobility, housing and quality of life were shaped by the provision of new transport infrastructures, enabled by access to cheap oil. These failures clearly relate to systems failures from an innovation systems perspective, but, because of the long-term nature of infrastructure provision, they are also highly relevant for thinking about transformational failures.
6 3.3. Mission oriented policy approach The work of Marianna Mazzucato (2013) has explored the key role that public investments have played in many recent technological advances, including the internet and smart phones. She argues that this has been in spite of, rather than because of, conventional innovation policy arguments for intervention based on market failures. In her recent work (Mazzucato, 2015), she identifies four key limitations to the market failure theory, which are particularly relevant for policy frameworks and measures needed to dynamically create and shape new markets: (1) Directionality: envisioning and picking strategically: This relates to the need for interventions to address societal challenges, such as environmental problems. Given the key role that policy support has provided in shaping past technological trajectories, she argues that the problem now facing policy makers is how to provide direction to mobilise and manage innovation activities to address these challenges. (2) Evaluation: static vs. dynamic metrics: This relates to the mismatch between the dynamic character of economic development and the static tools and indicators used to evaluate policy. She argues for the need for indicators for transformative policy actions that, as Keynes (1926) put it, do those things that are not done at all by the private sector, because they are perceived as too risky or providing too low rewards. (3) Organisation: learning, experimentation and self-discovery: This relates to the self-fulfilling prophecy whereby the less big thinking that governments do, the less they are able to do, because this tends to result in reducing the skills and capacities available within the policy making community for doing this type of analysis. She argues that, if the public sector is to take a key role in envisioning and managing transformative change, then it requires the capacity to do this. (4) Risks and rewards: towards symbiotic public-private partnerships: This relates to the key role of the state as lead investor in high risk areas, such as the early development of the internet or current investments in green technologies, but where private actors have gone on to claim most or all of the rewards from these investments in the cases when they are successful. She argues that governments should retain a direct share of the profits from these cases in which it has stimulated winning innovations. These have clear overlaps with the transformational failures identified by Weber and Rohracher (2013), in particular, in relation to directionality failure. However, these are framed more directly as issues justifying strategic policy interventions, rather than as transformational failures at a systems level. They thus provide clearer policy guidance, though they say less about how governments can address the challenge of providing clear direction, based on socially agreed goals, whilst maintaining a reflexive, learning based approach in practice. Mazzucato and Penna (2015) argue that addressing these issues requires a more long term, visionary mission-oriented policy approach for framing policy interventions to meet societal goals, including the large-scale deployment of green technologies. 4. How can these alternative rationales be embedded in policy frameworks? This paper has argued that innovation systems and related approaches can provide a richer basis for the rationale for policy interventions to promote innovation to address societal challenges, such as promoting a sustainability transition, than a conventional market failure perspective. However, as we have seen, these approaches have been criticised for lacking the clarity of market failure justifications for action. To some extent, this is inevitable, as systems approaches present a richer
7 picture of the drivers and barriers to innovation, involving synergies, interactions and fundamental uncertainties, compared to a neo-classical picture of rational actors making risk-reward judgements. However, providing clear guidance for action is important, so we try here to synthesise some key questions for policy makers from these various approaches: (1) What are the goals for transformative change? The goals for transformative change should be clearly articulated. These should be formulated in terms of outcomes, rather than specific technology choices or processes, but need to be publicly agreed and, if possible, widely accepted. Given that there will always be a range of viewpoints and perspectives of different actors (Stirling, 2014), it may be asked how feasible is this. The UK government s objective of an 80% reduction in UK carbon emissions by 2050, compared to 1990 levels, gives insight into how this could be done. Following promotion by a coalition of green groups and sympathetic business leaders, this goal was agreed by the UK Parliament under the 2008 Climate Change Act with the support of the three main political parties. Significantly, this was institutionalised through the setting of 5-yearly carbon budgets by Parliament, on the advice of the Committee on Climate Change, consisting of experts on science, technologies and economics of climate change. Though this has, so far, retained mainstream support by the three party leaderships, this framework is seen as not robust (Lockwood, 2014), mainly, as a wider process to encourage the public to buy into this target, and the changes that it implies, was not undertaken. This indicates that, for both moral and practical reasons, public engagement with setting the goals for transformative change is important. (2) What systems and multi-level interactions need to be considered in realising transformative change? Given the fundamental uncertainties involved, it is not possible to rigidly define transition pathways to achieving transformative change. However, the systemic and multi-level interactions involved, and the potential for path dependencies and lock-in, mean that a whole systems and multi-sector perspective is needed. An approach of attempting to correct for individual market failures is likely to ignore these systematic interdependencies, which may lead to unintended consequences. An example of this is provided by the UK s Electricity Market Reform programme, embodied in the 2013 Energy Act. This introduces new policy measures, including contract for difference feed-in tariffs, to promote investment in low carbon electricity generation technologies to mitigate climate change, but also a capacity market to maintain generation capacity in the short-term to ensure security of supply. This has led to the perverse outcome of existing high-carbon coal-fired generation being kept open to maintain capacity in the short-term. Such tensions can not be completely eliminated, but taking a systems and outcome-based approach, rather than attempting to address individual market failures separately, could arguably lead to a more coherent policy mix. (3) What are useful indicators for successful transformative innovation? As Mazzucato (2015) argued, and is supported by a dynamic view of systems change, useful indicators for transformative innovation need to address the potential for government action to transform and create new investment landscapes. The argument that this would crowd out private investment is negated by the risk-averse nature of much private sector investment, as Mazzucato identified, but also by the complementary argument that the private sector can not be expected to deliver socially-agreed public goals, such as climate change mitigation. Here, public good rationales, as a safe climate can not be bought individually, interact with uncertainties and the dynamic nature of change. This implies that relevant indicators should be outcome-based, e.g. levels of deployment of renewable energy in future years, supported by input- and process-based indicators of activity that can enable this, e.g. levels of renewable R&D spending and support for demonstration projects. Distinctions between support needed for first take-up of new innovations, their widespread diffusion and the institutionalisation of successful innovation needs to be recognised in this context.
8 (4) What policy measures would be likely to create the innovative capacities and user demands needed to realise this transformative innovation? This is likely to require a mission-oriented innovation approach (Mazzucato and Penna, 2015), supported by a systems view of innovation that takes into account the innovative capacities of actors, including government, and measures to support the creation of user demands for new options. This would require greater levels of government involvement in directions of both production and consumption than is currently generally accepted. Again, in democratic societies, this can only be justified by wider public engagement leading to broadly agreed long-term goals for transformation. (5) How can public sector bodies develop and retain the capacities to provide clear policy guidance, whilst recognising the need to create space for private sector actors to drive innovation? Of course, there is still a key role for the private sector to drive innovation to deliver transformative change. A mission-oriented innovation approach can help to create technological trajectories (Dosi, 1982) which guide the direction of innovation. This requires entrepreneurs to think outside the box to produce new technological solutions which meet user needs whilst significantly reducing environmental impacts. It is important that innovation is understood here as comprising innovation in business strategies, institutions and user practices, as well as technologies (Foxon, 2011). The role of communities and users in driving innovation is also likely to be important. (6) What other changes in policy frameworks and measures would be needed to prevent these from blocking the promotion of socially valuable innovation? Whilst innovation policies are important, they need to be supported by other policies, including sectoral policies and tax policies, to promote transformative change and avoid policy co-ordination failures. At the moment, whilst innovation policies are trying to promote low carbon innovation, other policies are reinforcing support for high consumption and high carbon lifestyles. As Mazzucato and Perez (2013) argue a green transformation will require a complete redirection of the entire economy, away from the energy- and materials-intensive model inherited from the mass production techno-economic paradigm. This could involve linking low carbon innovation to circular economy ideas, in which products are designed to be reused or remanufactured at the end of their useful lives (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2013). (7) How can symbiotic public-private partnerships be created that fairly distribute the risks and rewards of innovation? Transformative change can not be delivered by governments, private sector actors or civil society working on their own, but will require the creation of public-private partnerships. As Mazzucato (2015) argues, governments should be able to retain a direct share of the profits from cases in which it has stimulated winning innovations. More widely, the involvement of civil society will be stimulated by a sense that they are sharing in the rewards of innovation, and that benefits are not just flowing out of local communities to distant private firms and investors. (8) How can a learning-based approach be pursued, that provides clear direction, based on socially agreed goals, whilst maintaining capacities for reflection and learning? Whilst socially agreed goals can play an important role, there will still be disagreements about these and the best ways to achieve them. Government failures involving investment in unsuccessful innovations will continue to be highlighted by actors opposed to any government intervention. However, as the above authors have shown, this does not mean that responsibility can be abdicated by government solely to the private sector. Whilst it is important to create space for private and civil sector entrepreneurship to generate new innovative solutions, government still needs to act to create positive directions for change, whilst accepting that publicly-supported innovation efforts will sometimes fail. A learning-based approach to identifying which forms of support work and how
9 to provide clear direction for the removal of support measures, e.g. by degression measures for reducing renewable energy feed-in tariffs, are important. Finally, we briefly consider the extent to which it may be possible to introduce these ideas into current policy processes. Investment in infrastructure provision is one area where many governments have recognised that clear direction and policy coordination is needed. The UK government has set up a special unit Infrastructure UK, within HM Treasury, which brings together civil servants and private sector commercial experts to coordinate and simplify the planning and prioritisation of investment in UK infrastructure. This provides guidance and helps set priorities for a National Infrastructure Plan (HM Treasury, 2014). The UK s public innovation agency, Innovate UK, also provides investment in scientific and technological innovations, working with the private sector. The core guidance for public sector bodies on the appraisal of publicly-funded policies, programmes and projects is provided by the Green Book (HM Treasury, 2003/2011). This frames the rationale for government intervention in terms of addressing market failures, and requires an economic case for intervention based on cost-benefit analysis of different options, as part of a business case for action. However, this business case also requires assessment of the strategic, financial (affordability), commercial (viability) and management (achievability) aspects of the case (HM Treasury, 2013). There is recognition within Infrastructure UK of the need for more systemic and new economic thinking to inform policy interventions. We contributed to work led by colleagues at Leeds (Brown and Robertson, 2014) that has informed new supplementary guidance to the Green Book on valuing systemic interdependencies and flexibility associated with future uses (HM Treasury, 2015). We would argue that further work would be useful to incorporate more systemic and new economic thinking in strategic cases for intervention, and that this should include valuation of social and environmental impacts, as well as economic impacts (Foxon et al., 2015). 5. Conclusions and ways forward This paper has argued that a combination of ideas from innovation systems theory, systems of provision theory and mission-oriented innovation approach can provide useful guidance for policy support for transformative change for sustainability. These approaches lead to new rationales for policy intervention that go beyond correcting for market failures. Building on these rationales, we have identified the following eight challenges that need to be addressed for governments to play a synergistic role with private sector and civil society actors to achieve transformative change: (1) What are the goals for transformative change? (2) What systems and multi-level interactions need to be considered in realising transformative change? (3) What are useful indicators for successful transformative innovation? (4) What policy measures would be likely to create the innovative capacities and user demands needed to realise this transformative innovation? (5) How can public sector bodies develop and retain the capacities to provide clear policy guidance, whilst recognising the need to create space for private sector actors to drive innovation? (6) What other changes in policy frameworks and measures would be needed to prevent these from blocking the promotion of socially valuable innovation? (7) How can symbiotic public-private partnerships be created that fairly distribute the risks and rewards of innovation? (8) How can a learning-based approach be pursued, that provides clear direction, based on socially agreed goals, whilst maintaining capacities for reflection and learning? In a sense, achieving acceptance of the need for transformative change may be the most difficult challenge, as it does not fit well with current views that market-driven change should always be preferred. However, as many authors have argued, promoting a green transformation to achieve a sustainability transition needs engagement and co-operation between governments, private sector actors and wider civil society. This requires providing clear directions in terms of desired outcomes that can inform innovation and entrepreneurial activities by firms, social group and users. As this
10 also requires reorientation away from current energy- and materials-intensive practices, which will create losers as well as winners amongst current businesses, this is likely to need high levels of public support for this change in democratic societies. Whilst many argue that current systems are failing to deliver social and environmental goals, and innovation systems and mission-oriented approaches can help us to better understand how systemic change can be promoted, more work is needed, not least to create a public mandate for transformative change. Acknowledgements This paper builds on research carried out under the 'Realising Transition Pathways: Whole Systems Analysis for a UK More Electric Low Carbon Energy Future' Consortium Project [Ref.: EP/K005316/1], and the ibuild: Infrastructure BUsiness models, valuation and Innovation for Local Delivery project [Ref.: EP/K012398/1], funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), as well as earlier work under the Policy drivers and barriers for sustainable innovation project, funded by UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Sustainable Technologies Programme. The author would like to thank colleagues on those projects. However, the views expressed here are those of the author alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the collaborators or the policies of the funding body. References Arrow, K (1962), Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention, in Nelson, R. (Ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp Bayliss, K, Fine, B and Robertson, M (2013), From Financialisation to Consumption: the System of Provision Approach Applied to Housing and Water, FESSUD Working Paper Series, no 2, Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., Rickne, A. (2008), Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: a scheme of analysis, Research Policy 37, Bleda, M and del Rio, P (2013), The market failure and systemic failure rationales in technological innovation systems, Research Policy 42, Brown, A, Passarello, M V and Robertson, M (2014), The Economics of Infrastructure in Brown, A, and Robertson, M (eds.), Economic Evaluation of Systems of Infrastructure Provision: concepts, approaches and methods, ibuild/leeds report, University of Leeds, Brown, A, and Robertson, M (eds.) (2014), Economic Evaluation of Systems of Infrastructure Provision: concepts, approaches and methods, ibuild/leeds report, University of Leeds, Dodgson, M, Hughes, A, Foster, J and Metcalfe, S (2011), Systems thinking, market failure and the development of innovation policy: the case of Australia, Research Policy 40, Dopfer, K., Potts, J. (2008), The General Theory of Economic Evolution. Routledge, London. Dopfer, K., Potts, J. (2009), On the theory of economic evolution, Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review 6 (1), Dosi, G (1982), Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change, Research Policy, 11 (3), pp Edquist, C (2001), Innovation policy a systemic approach, in The Globalizing Learning Economy, Archibugi, D and Lundvall, B-A (eds.), Oxford University Press. Fine, B. (2002), The World of Consumption: The Cultural and Material Revisited, London: Routledge.
11 Foxon, T J (2006), Applying systems thinking and practice for promoting sustainable innovation, SPRU 40 th Anniversary Conference, 11 th 13 th September Foxon, T J (2007), The rationale for policy interventions from an innovation systems perspective, in Governing Technology for Sustainability, Murphy, J (ed.), Earthscan, London. Foxon, T J (2011), A co-evolutionary framework for analysing a transition to a sustainable low carbon economy, Ecological Economics 70, Foxon, T J (2013), Transition pathways for a UK low carbon electricity future, Energy Policy 52, pp Foxon, T J and Pearson, P (2008), Overcoming barriers to innovation and diffusion of cleaner technologies: some features of a sustainable innovation policy regime, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(1), Supplement 1, pp. S148-S161. Foxon, T J, Gross, R, Chase, A, Howes, J, Arnall, A and Anderson, D (2005a), UK innovation systems for new and renewable energy technologies: drivers, barriers and systems failures, Energy Policy 33(16), pp Foxon, T J, Pearson, P, Makuch, Z and Mata, M (2005b), Transforming policy processes to promote sustainable innovation: some guiding principles, Report for policy-makers, ESRC Sustainable Technologies Programme, ISBN , March Foxon, T J, Bale, C S E, Busch, J, Bush, R, Hall, S and Roelich, K (2015), Low Carbon Infrastructure Investment: Extending Business Models for Sustainability, Infrastructure Complexity 2:4. Geels, F.W. (2002), Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study, Research Policy 31 (8 9), HM Government (2011), The Carbon Plan: Delivering our low carbon future, DECC, London. HM Treasury (2003/2011), The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government, London: TSO. HM Treasury (2013), Public sector business cases using the five case model, Green Book Supplementary Guidance, London. HM Treasury (2014), National Infrastructure Plan 2014, HM Treasury (2015), Valuing Infrastructure Spend: Supplementary guidance to the Green Book, Jacobsson, S., Bergek, A. (2004), Transforming the energy sector: the evolution of technology systems in renewable energy technology, Industrial and corporate change 13 (5), Keynes, J M (1926), The end of laissez-faire, London, Prometheus Books. Lockwood, M (2013), The political sustainability of climate policy: The case of the UK Climate Change Act, Global Environmental Change 23(5), Mazzucato, M (2013), The Entrepreneurial State: debunking public vs private sector myths, Anthem Press, London. Mazzucato, M (2015), Innovation Systems: From Fixing Market Failures to Creating Markets, Intereconomics Volume 50, May/June 2015, Number 3, pp Mazzucato, M and Penna, C (2015), Mission-Oriented Finance for Innovation: New ideas for investment-led growth, Policy Network and Rowman and Littlefield International, Mazzucato, M and Perez, C (2014), Innovation as Growth Policy, in: J. Fagerberg, S. Laestadius, B. Martin (eds.): The Triple Challenge: Europe in a New Age, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
12 Smith, K (2000), Innovation as a systemic phenomenon: Rethinking the role of policy, Enterprise & Innovation Management Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp Stirling, A (2014), Transforming power: social science and the politics of energy choices, Energy Research & Social Science, 1. pp Weber, K M and Rohracher, H (2012), Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive failures framework, Research Policy 41, Woolthuis, R., Lankhuizen, M., Gilsing, V. (2005), A system failure framework for innovation policy design, Technovation 25, Biography Dr Timothy J. Foxon is Reader in Sustainability and Innovation at the Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, UK. His research explores technological and social factors relating to the innovation of new energy technologies, and co-evolution of technologies and institutions for a transition to a sustainable low carbon economy. He has published over 50 academic journal papers and book chapters, a co-edited book, and been lead or co-author on a number of reports for UK and international policy-makers. In September 2015, he will join SPRU at the University of Sussex as Professor of Sustainability Transitions.
Co-evolutionary of technologies, institutions and business strategies for a low carbon future
Co-evolutionary of technologies, institutions and business strategies for a low carbon future Dr Timothy J Foxon Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds, Leeds, U.K. Complexity economics
More informationPlease send your responses by to: This consultation closes on Friday, 8 April 2016.
CONSULTATION OF STAKEHOLDERS ON POTENTIAL PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN THE 2018-2020 WORK PROGRAMME OF HORIZON 2020 SOCIETAL CHALLENGE 5 'CLIMATE ACTION, ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCE EFFICIENCY AND
More informationEngaging UK Climate Service Providers a series of workshops in November 2014
Engaging UK Climate Service Providers a series of workshops in November 2014 Belfast, London, Edinburgh and Cardiff Four workshops were held during November 2014 to engage organisations (providers, purveyors
More informationBASED ECONOMIES. Nicholas S. Vonortas
KNOWLEDGE- BASED ECONOMIES Nicholas S. Vonortas Center for International Science and Technology Policy & Department of Economics The George Washington University CLAI June 9, 2008 Setting the Stage The
More informationMILAN DECLARATION Joining Forces for Investment in the Future of Europe
MILAN DECLARATION Joining Forces for Investment in the Future of Europe We, the political leaders and representatives of the Vanguard Initiative for New Growth through Smart Specialisation, call upon the
More informationEconomic and Social Council
United Nations Economic and Social Council Distr.: General 11 February 2013 Original: English Economic Commission for Europe Sixty-fifth session Geneva, 9 11 April 2013 Item 3 of the provisional agenda
More informationA Brief Introduction to the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) T. Steward - November 2012
A Brief Introduction to the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) T. Steward - November 2012 In brief... What is it? A means for explaining how technological transitions come about A means to understanding the
More informationStrategic Intelligence revisited GÖRAN MARKLUND DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL
Strategic Intelligence revisited GÖRAN MARKLUND DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL Imagine a Small Country. Global Societal Challenges Win Win Win Source: Rockström, J. and Sukhdev, P. new way of viewing the Sustainable
More informationWORKSHOP ON BASIC RESEARCH: POLICY RELEVANT DEFINITIONS AND MEASUREMENT ISSUES PAPER. Holmenkollen Park Hotel, Oslo, Norway October 2001
WORKSHOP ON BASIC RESEARCH: POLICY RELEVANT DEFINITIONS AND MEASUREMENT ISSUES PAPER Holmenkollen Park Hotel, Oslo, Norway 29-30 October 2001 Background 1. In their conclusions to the CSTP (Committee for
More informationCopernicus Evolution: Fostering Growth in the EO Downstream Services Sector
Copernicus Evolution: Fostering Growth in the EO Downstream Services Sector Summary: Copernicus is a European programme designed to meet the needs of the public sector for spacederived, geospatial information
More informationTransition strategies: a technological and industrial perspective
CenSES RA4: Green Paper TIK strategy 2013 Transition strategies: a technological and industrial perspective A main objective of the research of CenSES is to contribute to new knowledge on how we can transform
More informationHow to accelerate sustainability transitions?
How to accelerate sustainability transitions? Messages for local governments and transition initiatives This document is the last of the series of Transition Reads published as part of the ARTS project,
More informationProgramme. Social Economy. in Västra Götaland Adopted on 19 June 2012 by the regional board, Region Västra Götaland
Programme Social Economy in Västra Götaland 2012-2015 Adopted on 19 June 2012 by the regional board, Region Västra Götaland List of contents 1. Introduction... 3 2. Policy and implementation... 4 2.1 Prioritised
More informationClimate Change Innovation and Technology Framework 2017
Climate Change Innovation and Technology Framework 2017 Advancing Alberta s environmental performance and diversification through investments in innovation and technology Table of Contents 2 Message from
More informationThe Policy Content and Process in an SDG Context: Objectives, Instruments, Capabilities and Stages
The Policy Content and Process in an SDG Context: Objectives, Instruments, Capabilities and Stages Ludovico Alcorta UNU-MERIT alcorta@merit.unu.edu www.merit.unu.edu Agenda Formulating STI policy STI policy/instrument
More informationSocial Innovation and new pathways to social changefirst insights from the global mapping
Social Innovation and new pathways to social changefirst insights from the global mapping Social Innovation2015: Pathways to Social change Vienna, November 18-19, 2015 Prof. Dr. Jürgen Howaldt/Antonius
More informationWritten response to the public consultation on the European Commission Green Paper: From
EABIS THE ACADEMY OF BUSINESS IN SOCIETY POSITION PAPER: THE EUROPEAN UNION S COMMON STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND INNOVATION FUNDING Written response to the public consultation on the European
More informationCOMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT. Accompanying the
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 30.11.2011 SEC(2011) 1428 final Volume 1 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the Communication from the Commission 'Horizon
More informationCommission proposal for Horizon Europe. #HorizonEU THE NEXT EU RESEARCH & INNOVATION PROGRAMME ( )
Commission proposal for Horizon Europe THE NEXT EU RESEARCH & INNOVATION PROGRAMME (2021 2027) #HorizonEU Feilim O'Connor - DG ENER, Unit C.2 ETIP SNET Workshops 19/09/2018 Research and Innovation Commission
More informationPolicy packaging or policy patching? The development of complex policy mixes
Policy packaging or policy patching? The development of complex policy mixes Florian Kern, Paula Kivimaa, Mari Martiskainen SPRU-Science Policy Research Unit Why study policy mixes? Much research focused
More informationConclusions on the future of information and communication technologies research, innovation and infrastructures
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Conclusions on the future of information and communication technologies research, innovation and infrastructures 2982nd COMPETITIVESS (Internal market, Industry and Research)
More informationPost : RIS 3 and evaluation
Post 2014-2020: RIS 3 and evaluation Final Conference Györ, 8th November 2011 Luisa Sanches Polcy analyst, innovation European Commission, DG REGIO Thematic Coordination and Innovation 1 Timeline November-December
More informationNew challenges and the future of NIS approaches Conceptual Considerations
New challenges and the future of NIS approaches Conceptual Considerations Stefan Kuhlmann, STəPS TWENTE Workshop Future Orientations for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy OECD Working Party on
More informationGUIDELINES SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH MATTERS. ON HOW TO SUCCESSFULLY DESIGN, AND IMPLEMENT, MISSION-ORIENTED RESEARCH PROGRAMMES
SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES RESEARCH MATTERS. GUIDELINES ON HOW TO SUCCESSFULLY DESIGN, AND IMPLEMENT, MISSION-ORIENTED RESEARCH PROGRAMMES to impact from SSH research 2 INSOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
More informationLooking over the Horizon Visioning and Backcasting for UK Transport Policy
Looking over the Horizon Visioning and Backcasting for UK Transport Policy Department for Transport New Horizons Research Programme 2004/05 David Banister The Bartlett School of Planning University College
More informationThe economics of change: Policy appraisal for missions, market shaping and public purpose
IIPP Policy Brief (August 2018) The economics of change: Policy appraisal for missions, market shaping and public purpose Professor Rainer Kattel Deputy Director, UCL Professor Mariana Mazzucato Director,
More informationExploring elements for a transformative biodiversity agenda post-2020
Exploring elements for a transformative biodiversity agenda post-2020 I. INTRODUCTION 1. This information note introduces the concept of sustainability transitions, describes its relevance for the biodiversity
More informationTorsti Loikkanen, Principal Scientist, Research Coordinator VTT Innovation Studies
Forward Looking Activities Governing Grand Challenges Vienna, 27-28 September 2012 Support of roadmap approach in innovation policy design case examples on various levels Torsti Loikkanen, Principal Scientist,
More informationSmart Management for Smart Cities. How to induce strategy building and implementation
Smart Management for Smart Cities How to induce strategy building and implementation Why a smart city strategy? Today cities evolve faster than ever before and allthough each city has a unique setting,
More informationHorizon 2020 Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding
Horizon 2020 Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding Rudolf Strohmeier DG Research & Innovation The context: Europe 2020 strategy Objectives of smart, sustainable and
More information8365/18 CF/nj 1 DG G 3 C
Council of the European Union Brussels, 30 April 2018 (OR. en) 8365/18 RECH 149 COMPET 246 NOTE From: To: Presidency Delegations No. prev. doc.: 8057/1/18 RECH 136 COMPET 230 Subject: Draft Council conclusions
More informationInformation Societies: Towards a More Useful Concept
IV.3 Information Societies: Towards a More Useful Concept Knud Erik Skouby Information Society Plans Almost every industrialised and industrialising state has, since the mid-1990s produced one or several
More informationCommission proposal for Horizon Europe. #HorizonEU THE NEXT EU RESEARCH & INNOVATION PROGRAMME ( )
Commission proposal for Horizon Europe THE NEXT EU RESEARCH & INNOVATION PROGRAMME (2021 2027) #HorizonEU Jürgen Tiedje SPIRE PPP Brokerage Event 14 June 2018 Research and Innovation Horizon Europe is
More informationScience Impact Enhancing the Use of USGS Science
United States Geological Survey. 2002. "Science Impact Enhancing the Use of USGS Science." Unpublished paper, 4 April. Posted to the Science, Environment, and Development Group web site, 19 March 2004
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 28.3.2008 COM(2008) 159 final 2008/0064 (COD) Proposal for a DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL concerning the European Year of Creativity
More informationMapping Ireland s Energy Pathways: Characterizing and Catalyzing Transition
Mapping Ireland s Energy Pathways: Characterizing and Catalyzing Transition Curry, R., Ellis, G., Barry, J., & Hume, T. (2016). Mapping Ireland s Energy Pathways: Characterizing and Catalyzing Transition.
More informationInclusively Creative
In Bandung, Indonesia, December 5 th to 7 th 2017, over 100 representatives from the government, civil society, the private sector, think-tanks and academia, international organization as well as a number
More informationEnacting Transformative Innovation Policy: A Comparative Study
Enacting Transformative Innovation Policy: A Comparative Study Johan Schot - Director Science Policy Research Unit - SPRU University of Sussex @Johan_Schot Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium Aim
More informationWater, Energy and Environment in the scope of the Circular Economy
Water, Energy and Environment in the scope of the Circular Economy Maria da Graça Carvalho 11th SDEWES Conference Lisbon 2016 Contents of the Presentation 1. The Circular Economy 2. The Horizon 2020 Program
More informationPolicy Learning and Policy Change in a Context of Industry Crisis The Case of Chilean Salmon Farming Industry Verónica Roa Petrasic
Policy Learning and Policy Change in a Context of Industry Crisis The Case of Chilean Salmon Farming Industry Verónica Roa Petrasic (veronica.roa@sussex.ac.uk) SPRU: Science and Technology Policy Research
More informationDRAFT TEXT on. Version 2 of 9 September 13:00 hrs
DRAFT TEXT on SBSTA 48.2 agenda item 5 Development and transfer of technologies: Technology framework under Article 10, paragraph 4, of the Paris Agreement Version 2 of 9 September 13:00 hrs Elements of
More informationTechnological and institutional change for a transition to a low carbon economy: a co-evolutionary framework
Technological and institutional change for a transition to a low carbon economy: a co-evolutionary framework Timothy J Foxon Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University
More informationScoping Paper for. Horizon 2020 work programme Societal Challenge 4: Smart, Green and Integrated Transport
Scoping Paper for Horizon 2020 work programme 2018-2020 Societal Challenge 4: Smart, Green and Integrated Transport Important Notice: Working Document This scoping paper will guide the preparation of the
More informationVSNU December Broadening EU s horizons. Position paper FP9
VSNU December 2017 Broadening EU s horizons Position paper FP9 Introduction The European project was conceived to bring peace and prosperity to its citizens after two world wars. In the last decades, it
More informationdemonstrator approach real market conditions would be useful to provide a unified partner search instrument for the CIP programme
Contribution by the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Czech Republic to the public consultations on a successor programme to the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) 2007-2013 Given
More informationWelcome to the future of energy
Welcome to the future of energy Sustainable Innovation Jobs The Energy Systems Catapult - why now? Our energy system is radically changing. The challenges of decarbonisation, an ageing infrastructure and
More informationNational Innovation Systems: Implications for Policy and Practice. Dr. James Cunningham Director. Centre for Innovation and Structural Change
National Innovation Systems: Implications for Policy and Practice Dr. James Cunningham Centre for Innovation and Structural Change InterTradeIreland Innovation Conference 2009 9 th June 2009 Overview National
More informationNational Innovation System of Mongolia
National Innovation System of Mongolia Academician Enkhtuvshin B. Mongolians are people with rich tradition of knowledge. When the Great Mongolian Empire was established in the heart of Asia, Chinggis
More information7656/18 CF/MI/nj 1 DG G 3 C
Council of the European Union Brussels, 6 April 2018 (OR. en) 7656/18 RECH 120 COMPET 192 NOTE From: To: Presidency Delegations No. prev. doc.: 7424/18 RECH 120 COMPET 192 Subject: Draft Council conclusions
More informationBuilding Collaborative Networks for Innovation
Building Collaborative Networks for Innovation Patricia McHugh Centre for Innovation and Structural Change National University of Ireland, Galway Systematic Reviews: Their Emerging Role in Co- Creating
More informationA differentiated approach to mission-oriented innovation policy: Contextualizing societal challenges in a problem-solution space
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development EU-SPRI 2018 June 6 8, ESIEE Paris A differentiated approach to mission-oriented innovation policy: Contextualizing societal challenges in a problem-solution
More informationEuropean Commission. 6 th Framework Programme Anticipating scientific and technological needs NEST. New and Emerging Science and Technology
European Commission 6 th Framework Programme Anticipating scientific and technological needs NEST New and Emerging Science and Technology REFERENCE DOCUMENT ON Synthetic Biology 2004/5-NEST-PATHFINDER
More informationTRANSFORMATIVE (INNOVATION) POLICY
TRANSFORMATIVE (INNOVATION) POLICY An overview of current debates and controversies K. Matthias Weber AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Center for Innovation Systems and Policy EU-SPRI Conference 2018
More informationClimate Change, Energy and Transport: The Interviews
SCANNING STUDY POLICY BRIEFING NOTE 1 Climate Change, Energy and Transport: The Interviews What can the social sciences contribute to thinking about climate change and energy in transport research and
More informationREGIONAL INTELLIGENCE FOR REGIONAL STRATEGY. Dr. James Wilson Orkestra and Deusto Business School
REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE FOR REGIONAL STRATEGY Dr. James Wilson Orkestra and Deusto Business School Entrepreneuruial Ecosystems Creating Jobs Symposium University of South Australia, Adelaide, 10 July 2018
More informationA Science & Innovation Audit for the West Midlands
A Science & Innovation Audit for the West Midlands June 2017 Summary Report Key Findings and Moving Forward 1. Key findings and moving forward 1.1 As the single largest functional economic area in England
More informationInitial draft of the technology framework. Contents. Informal document by the Chair
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice Forty-eighth session Bonn, 30 April to 10 May 2018 15 March 2018 Initial draft of the technology framework Informal document by the Chair Contents
More informationTHE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IN A CIRCULAR ECONOMY, A TRANSITION NARRATIVE
THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IN A CIRCULAR ECONOMY, A TRANSITION NARRATIVE Peter De Smedt & Kristian Borch Transition Lab, BE DTU Department of Management Engineering, DK Futures of a Complex World 12 1 June
More informationGetting the evidence: Using research in policy making
Getting the evidence: Using research in policy making REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL HC 586-I Session 2002-2003: 16 April 2003 LONDON: The Stationery Office 14.00 Two volumes not to be sold
More informationExpert Group Meeting on
Aide memoire Expert Group Meeting on Governing science, technology and innovation to achieve the targets of the Sustainable Development Goals and the aspirations of the African Union s Agenda 2063 2 and
More information6/14/2017. Engineering Future Cities The Value of Extreme Scenario Methodologies
Engineering Future Cities The Value of Extreme Scenario Methodologies Resilience Through Innovation Critical Local Transport and Utility Infrastructure Professor Chris Rogers University of Birmingham 12
More informationCOMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STRATEGY FOR EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGY PLATFORMS: ETP 2020
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 12.7.2013 SWD(2013) 272 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STRATEGY FOR EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGY PLATFORMS: ETP 2020 EN EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STRATEGY FOR EUROPEAN
More informationTHEFUTURERAILWAY THE INDUSTRY S RAIL TECHNICAL STRATEGY 2012 INNOVATION
73 INNOVATION 74 VISION A dynamic industry that innovates to evolve, grow and attract the best entrepreneurial talent OBJECTIVES Innovation makes a significant and continuing contribution to rail business
More informationTHE IMPLICATIONS OF THE KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMY FOR FUTURE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICIES
General Distribution OCDE/GD(95)136 THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMY FOR FUTURE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICIES 26411 ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Paris 1995 Document
More informationSMART PLACES WHAT. WHY. HOW.
SMART PLACES WHAT. WHY. HOW. @adambeckurban @smartcitiesanz We envision a world where digital technology, data, and intelligent design have been harnessed to create smart, sustainable cities with highquality
More informationCommission proposal for Horizon Europe. #HorizonEU THE NEXT EU RESEARCH & INNOVATION PROGRAMME ( )
Commission proposal for Horizon Europe THE NEXT EU RESEARCH & INNOVATION PROGRAMME (2021 2027) #HorizonEU Maria da Graça Carvalho Coimbra Group High Level Seminar 6-7 December 2018, San Servolo Research
More informationDecember Eucomed HTA Position Paper UK support from ABHI
December 2008 Eucomed HTA Position Paper UK support from ABHI The Eucomed position paper on Health Technology Assessment presents the views of the Medical Devices Industry of the challenges of performing
More informationFINLAND. The use of different types of policy instruments; and/or Attention or support given to particular S&T policy areas.
FINLAND 1. General policy framework Countries are requested to provide material that broadly describes policies related to science, technology and innovation. This includes key policy documents, such as
More informationThe Role of the Intellectual Property Office
The Role of the Intellectual Property Office Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office The Hargreaves Review In 2011, Professor Ian Hargreaves published his review of intellectual
More informationRoadmap for European Universities in Energy December 2016
Roadmap for European Universities in Energy December 2016 1 Project partners This project has received funding from the European Union s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development
More informationGoverning energy transitions towards a low-carbon society: the role of reflexive regulation and strategic experiments
Governing energy transitions towards a low-carbon society: the role of reflexive regulation and strategic experiments Annukka Berg, Suvi Borgström, Mikael Hildén, Jukka Similä Environmental Policy Centre,
More informationA transition perspective on the Convention on Biological Diversity: Towards transformation?
A transition perspective on the Convention on Biological Diversity: Towards transformation? Session 2. Discussion note 2nd Bogis-Bossey Dialogue for Biodiversity Pre-Alpina Hotel, Chexbres, Switzerland,
More informationHorizon Work Programme Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies - Introduction
EN Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2018-2020 5. Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies - Introduction Important notice on the Horizon 2020 Work Programme This Work Programme covers 2018, 2019 and
More informationCatalysing the Irish Energy Transition: Capacities and Challenges
Catalysing the Irish Energy Transition: Capacities and Challenges Hume, T., Ellis, G., Barry, J., & Curry, R. (2016). Catalysing the Irish Energy Transition: Capacities and Challenges. Paper presented
More informationIntegrated Transformational and Open City Governance Rome May
Integrated Transformational and Open City Governance Rome May 9-11 2016 David Ludlow University of the West of England, Bristol Workshop Aims Key question addressed - how do we advance towards a smart
More informationFramework conditions, innovation policies and instruments: Lessons Learned
International Conference Better Policies for More Innovation Assessment Implementation Monitoring Framework conditions, innovation policies and instruments: Lessons Learned Dr. Thomas Stahlecker Minsk,
More informationA SYSTEMIC APPROACH TO KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY FORESIGHT. THE ROMANIAN CASE
A SYSTEMIC APPROACH TO KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY FORESIGHT. THE ROMANIAN CASE Expert 1A Dan GROSU Executive Agency for Higher Education and Research Funding Abstract The paper presents issues related to a systemic
More information10 themes for eco-innovation policy
10 themes for eco-innovation policy René Kemp Presentation for RENTRANS meeting, Oslo, 23 Sept, 2011 Changing focus of innovation policy Overview of eco-innovation measures in EU Member States Source:
More informationHorizon Europe. #HorizonEU THE NEXT EU RESEARCH & INNOVATION PROGRAMME ( ) DG Research and Innovation September Research and Innovation
Horizon Europe THE NEXT EU RESEARCH & INNOVATION PROGRAMME (2021 2027) #HorizonEU DG Research and Innovation September 2018 Research and Innovation 'With growing international competition, Europe needs
More informationSocietal challenges as a driver for innovations - The Nordic Region an attractive place for advanced businesses?
Societal challenges as a driver for innovations - The Nordic Region an attractive place for advanced businesses? Helsinki 2018-05-23 Göran Marklund Strategic Focus Sustainable Growth Catalyzing virtuous
More informationHorizon 2020 and CAP towards 2020
Horizon 2020 and CAP towards 2020 An update of contributions by the SCAR cwg AKIS Dublin, June, 2013 Pascal Bergeret, Krijn J. Poppe, Kevin Heanue Content of the presentation Summary of findings CWG AKIS
More informationEU Support for SME Innovation: The SME Instrument
Audit preview Information on an upcoming audit EU Support for SME Innovation: The SME Instrument April 2019 2 Traditionally, start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the EU have faced
More informationFP9 s ambitious aims for societal impact call for a step change in interdisciplinarity and citizen engagement.
FP9 s ambitious aims for societal impact call for a step change in interdisciplinarity and citizen engagement. The European Alliance for SSH welcomes the invitation of the Commission to contribute to the
More informationKnowledge-Oriented Diversification Strategies: Policy Options for Transition Economies
Knowledge-Oriented Diversification Strategies: Policy Options for Transition Economies Presentation by Rumen Dobrinsky UN Economic Commission for Europe Economic Cooperation and Integration Division Diversification
More informationHow can public and social innovation build a more inclusive economy?
How can public and social innovation build a more inclusive economy? Friday 27th January 2017 Nesta Guest seespark Welcome and Introduction Madeleine Gabriel Head of Inclusive Innovation, International
More informationOECD Innovation Strategy: Key Findings
The Voice of OECD Business March 2010 OECD Innovation Strategy: Key Findings (SG/INNOV(2010)1) BIAC COMMENTS General comments BIAC has strongly supported the development of the horizontal OECD Innovation
More informationHTA Position Paper. The International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) defines HTA as:
HTA Position Paper The Global Medical Technology Alliance (GMTA) represents medical technology associations whose members supply over 85 percent of the medical devices and diagnostics purchased annually
More informationRegional Innovation Policies: System Failures, Knowledge Bases and Construction Regional Advantage
Regional Innovation Policies: System Failures, Knowledge Bases and Construction Regional Advantage Michaela Trippl CIRCLE, Lund University VRI Annual Conference 3-4 December, 2013 Introduction Regional
More informationSpeech by the OECD Deputy Secretary General Mr. Aart de Geus
ECONOMIC PROSPERITY AND SOCIAL COHESION: THE ROLE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION AN OECD PERSPECTIVE Speech by the OECD Deputy Secretary General Mr. Aart de Geus Dear Sheik, Dear participants, I am
More informationTransition to sustainable cities a sociotechnical approach for transformative innovation. Fred Steward Sustainable Innovation 2014, Copenhagen
Transition to sustainable cities a sociotechnical approach for transformative innovation Fred Steward Sustainable Innovation 2014, Copenhagen New focus on cities & climate change engagement of cities throughout
More informationConclusions concerning various issues related to the development of the European Research Area
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Conclusions concerning various issues related to the development of the European Research Area The Council adopted the following conclusions: "THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN
More informationSmart specialisation strategies what kind of strategy?
Smart specialisation strategies what kind of strategy? what kind of experiences? Conference on Regional Development Policies organized by The Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation, Oslo
More informationSystemic Innovation Policy
Systemic Innovation Policy Conference Implementing innovation policy: Searching for the perfect dance Erik Arnold, Technopolis and University of Twente Bogotá 3 August 2016 So let the dance begin Where
More informationThe Challenge for SMEs. Government Policy
HOW CAN SMEs MAKE THE MOST OF OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR THE UK INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY A speech delivered at the launch of a British Academy and Leverhulme funded project on knowledge co-creation between
More informationA Research and Innovation Agenda for a global Europe: Priorities and Opportunities for the 9 th Framework Programme
A Research and Innovation Agenda for a global Europe: Priorities and Opportunities for the 9 th Framework Programme A Position Paper by the Young European Research Universities Network About YERUN The
More informationInnovation support instruments a policy mix approach
Innovation support instruments a policy mix approach Klaus Schuch Centre for Social Innovation 2 nd Stakeholder s Forum Enhancing Ukraine s Competitiveness In R&I on the way to the Association to Horizon
More informationUnderstanding the Web of Constraints on Resource Efficiency in Europe Lessons for Policy
POLICY BRIEF 1 MARCH 2016 Understanding the Web of Constraints on Resource Efficiency in Europe Lessons for Policy SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS In practice there are usually compound causes for why resources
More informationTOOL #21. RESEARCH & INNOVATION
TOOL #21. RESEARCH & INNOVATION 1. INTRODUCTION This research and innovation Tool provides clear guidelines for analysing the interaction between new or revised EU legislation (including spending programmes)
More informationTENTATIVE REFLECTIONS ON A FRAMEWORK FOR STI POLICY ROADMAPS FOR THE SDGS
TENTATIVE REFLECTIONS ON A FRAMEWORK FOR STI POLICY ROADMAPS FOR THE SDGS STI Roadmaps for the SDGs, EGM International Workshop 8-9 May 2018, Tokyo Michal Miedzinski, UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources,
More informationMeeting Report (Prepared by Angel Aparicio, Transport Advisory Group Rapporteur) 21 June Introduction... 1
INFORMAL DISCUSSION WITH STAKEHOLDERS ON THE TRANSPORT COMPONENT OF THE NEXT COMMON STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH AND INNOVATION Brussels, 16 June 2011 Meeting Report (Prepared by Angel Aparicio, Transport
More information