Policy Mixes for R&D in Europe

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Policy Mixes for R&D in Europe"

Transcription

1 Policy Mixes for R&D in Europe A study commissioned by the European Commission Directorate - General for Research

2 Contact : Claire Nauwelaers Coordinator of the Policy Mix project UNU-MERIT University of Maastricht and United Nations University c.nauwelaers@merit.unimaas.nl This report has been prepared on the basis of the results of a study commissioned by the European Commission s Directorate-General for Research. The views presented in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.

3 Policy Mixes for R&D in Europe Lead partner : Claire Nauwelaers (UNU-MERIT, University of Maastricht and United Nations University) With inputs from Policy Mix team : Patries Boekholt, Bastian Mostert (Technopolis Group) Paul Cunningham (University of Manchester) Ken Guy (Wise Guys Ltd) Reinhold Hofer (Joanneum Research) Christian Rammer (ZEW) UNU-MERIT, April 2009 A study commissioned by the European Commission Directorate-General for Research

4

5 Policy Mixes for R&D in Europe Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Designing policy mixes for R&D : A model 5 3. Key questions for a country-level Policy Mix analysis 9 4. Core issues for Policy Mix design Policy Mix and Innovation System Challenges Coordination needs for the Policy Mix Stakeholder Engagement for Policy Mixes Policy Mix Design Implementation, Evaluation and Impacts of Policy Mixes State-of-play with Policy Mix Developments in practice Conclusions and future needs 41 Annex : The Policy Mix Study and Web Site 43 1

6

7 1. Introduction Increasing quantity and performance of research investments is a goal pursued by most governments in Europe and elsewhere. Which portfolios of instruments and policies are most effective to this aim? This report helps policymakers confronted with this question, by providing a framework, lessons from policy experiences, and policy tips and hints on how to create and implement an efficient policy mix for R&D. The content of this report is based on the results of a study commissioned by the European Commission s Research Directorate-General, carried out during by a partnership of six research organizations specialised in science, technology and innovation policy studies 1. The research team conducted two types of work : 1. Introduction Theoretical and conceptual analysis of the policy mix concept (Methodology development, Policy Mix Key Questions, Policy Mix Themes) ; Investigation and analysis of policy mixes experiences in more than 30 countries: country reviews for all EU-27 Member States, the United States, Canada, Japan and South Korea and case studies in selected countries, regions and sectors.the full results of this work are available on the project website : What is a policy mix? The novelty of the policy mix concept is that it relies on the idea that it is the combination of policy instruments interacting among each other, which influences R&D, rather than instruments taken in isolation. The other key idea is that R&D is not only influenced by policies from that policy sphere (such as direct funding or fiscal incentives, etc.) but that R&D is also influenced by policies from other domains, such as, for example, environmental regulations influencing R&D activities. A policy mix (targeted at R&D investments) is defined as : The combination of policy instruments, which interact to influence the quantity and quality of R&D investments in public and private sectors. 1 See a summary of the project and its main outputs in the Annex. The empirical information available on the web site represents the situation at the end of 2006 for country reviews, and 2007 for case studies. For updated information on R&D policies, see the ERAWATCH portal on innovation policies, see the Pro-INNO portal 3

8 1. Introduction In this definition, policy instruments are : All programmes, organisations, rules and regulations with an active involvement of the public sector, which intentionally or unintentionally affect R&D investments. This usually involves some public funding, but not always as, for example, regulatory changes affect R&D investments without the intervention of public funds. Interactions refer to: The fact that the influence of one policy instrument is modified by the co-existence of other policy instruments in the policy mix. Influences on R&D investments are: either direct (in this case we consider instruments from the field of R&D policy) or indirect (in that case we consider all policy instruments from any policy field which indirectly impact on R&D investments, the non- R&D policies). No best practices! Unfortunately, there is no easy recipe to find a «best policy mix» that is valid everywhere. This is due to the complexity of R&D and innovation systems and the vast differences between them in terms of comparative strength, maturity and governance structures and processes. Hence, this report aims at providing guidance and food for thought to reflect upon this complex question. Structure of the report In this report, the reader will find : A Policy Typology Model to be used for approaching the policy mix concept (Chapter 2) ; Key questions for empirically analysing policy mixes (Chapter 3); A thorough discussion of five core issues which have been found crucial for evolution towards coherent and efficient policy mixes (Chapter 4): o Policy Mix and Innovation System Challenges o Coordination needs for the Policy Mix o Stakeholder Engagement for Policy Mixes 4 o Policy Mix Design o Implementation, Evaluation and Impacts of Policy Mixes ; A view on the state-of-play of policy mix developments in practice (Chapter 5); Conclusions on future needs for designing more efficient policy mixes (Chapter 6)

9 2. Designing policy mixes for R&D : A model A large variety of models and approaches can be used to approach the complex phenomenon of Policy Mixes for R&D. Several models are available on the Policy Mix Web Site. One of these models is the Policy Typology model depicted in Exhibit 1 below, with the associated policies listed in Exhibit 2. This model provides a framework to distinguish between R&D policies, with a direct impact on R&D activities and investment levels (indicated by red striped arrows), and non-r&d policies - those with more indirect effects (black and then dotted green arrows). The model presents four main policy domains (an R&D domain; an Innovation domain; a Human Capital domain; and a Finance domain) and depicts how a wide variety of different types of policies can theoretically impinge on these domains, both directly and indirectly. R&D Policies include : All generic and sectoral policies specifically aimed at the R&D domain, including so-called direct instruments (e.g. grants for R&D projects) and indirect instruments (e.g. R&D tax incentives) ; Human Capital policies specifically developed for the R&D domain ; R&D-specific Finance policies and instruments ; All policies that specifically link, or involve links between, the R&D and Innovation domains, e.g. programmes of collaborative R&D and IPR-related policies. Non-R&D Policies include : All other policies affecting the Human Capital domain that have indirect impacts on R&D activities (e.g. education and employment policy); All other policies affecting the Finance domain which have indirect impacts on R&D activities (e.g. financial and fiscal policy and macroeconomic policy); All other policies affecting the Innovation domain that have indirect impacts on R&D activities (e.g. innovation policy itself, plus policies in spheres as diverse as industry, trade, defence, consumer protection, health and safety, environment, regional development and competition). 2. Designing policy mixes for R&D : A model 5

10 2. Designing policy mixes for R&D : A model Exhibit 1 A Policy Typology Model to Distinguish between R&D and Non-R&D Policies Governance External Influences External Influences External Influences Governance Governance External Influences External Influences R&D domain : public and private R&D performers, e.g. universities, research institutes, government labs, high tech SMEs, larges firms etc. Other key domains : e.g. private sectors firms (Innovation domain) : financial institutions (Finances domain) ; eductational establishments (Human Capital domain) Direct policy impacts on R&D domain Direct policy impacts on other domains Indirect policy impacts on R&D and other domains External influences on all domains Governance structures and processes 6 Source : Policy Mix Project Team (2006), Methodological Report, Report to the Research DG,

11 Exhibit 2 A Taxonomy based on the Policy Typology Model R&D Domain Generic R&D Policies Public Sector Discretionary institutional funding for R&D projects (e.g. block funding) Competitive R&D project grants Support for R&D infrastructures Selective support for centres of excellence Structural reform of Public Research Institute sector etc. Private Sector Discretionary institutional funding for R&D (e.g. block funding to firms) Competitive R&D project grants Competitive R&D project loans R&D friendly procurement etc. Sectoral Selective R&D support schemes for existing high-tech sectors Selective R&D support schemes for new high-tech sectors Selective R&D support schemes for low to medium-tech sectors etc. R&D/Innovation Policies Linkage Policies Collaborative R&D programmes Technology platforms Cluster policies and regional growth pole policies Support for Science Parks and other co-location schemes Support for other University-Industry linkage mechanisms Support schemes for spin-offs etc. IPR Policies Reform of IPR regulations etc. 2. Designing policy mixes for R&D : A model R&D Specific Finance Policies Risk capital for R&D measures Loan and equity guarantees for R&D investment Volume R&D tax measures Incremental R&D tax measures etc. R&D Specific Human Capital Policies R&D Specific Education Policies Support for ST&E post-docs Support for ST&E post-grads etc. R&D Specific Employment Policies Subsidies for hiring R&D personnel R&D mobility schemes etc. (Continued overleaf) 7

12 Finance Domain 2. Designing policy mixes for R&D : A model Financial and Fiscal Policies Non-R&D Specific Risk capital measures supporting innovative companies (including start-ups) Loan and equity guarantees supporting innovative behaviour Tax measures supporting technology diffusion and innovation Favourable tax measures for all or select groups of companies etc. Macroeconomic Policies Sustainable growth oriented strategies Measures to ensure low interest rates Measures to ensure price stability etc. Human Capital Domain Education Policies Non-R&D Specific Support for ST&E under-grads Efforts to make S&T more attractive to students Entrepreneurship training schemes Support for life-long learning etc. Employment Policies Non-R&D Specific Support for flexible labour markets etc. Innovation Domain Innovation Policies Generic Technology diffusion schemes Awareness and demand stimulation schemes Information and brokerage schemes Non-R&D Network schemes Innovation management support schemes Support services to SMEs etc. Sectoral Selective innovation support schemes for existing high-tech sectors Selective innovation support schemes for new high-tech sectors Selective innovation support schemes for low to medium-tech sectors etc. Other Policies 8 Industry Policies Trade Policies Defence Policies Consumer Protection Policies Health and Safety Policies Environment Policies Regional Development Policies Competition Policies Other Policies

13 3. Key questions for a country-level Policy Mix analysis A Policy Typology Model such as the one proposed above, provides the conceptual framework necessary for studying different aspects of policy mixes. When deliberately setting out to design policy mixes or subcomponents of them in a specific country, however, there is also a need for further orientation, especially in terms of understanding the factors influencing the form and content of policies and the necessary steps to take to design new or modify existing policy mixes. In short, there is a need for context and history to inform designs for the future. The questions depicted in Exhibit 3 were used as the basis for drafting country reviews of policy mixes within the Policy Mix study 2. They also constitute a good starting point for policy makers when developing a contextual and historical perspective on their policy mixes for R&D. One first step is to understand the main challenges faced by the national innovation system and to appreciate how these have developed over time. This should be accompanied by a review of how policies have been mobilised to confront these challenges, together with an assessment of the appropriateness of these policies in terms of the match between stated policy objectives and the nature of the challenges faced. It is important to develop an appreciation of the range of policy instruments, from the R&D domain and outside ( R&D and non-r&d policies) used to fulfil policy objectives, again with assessments of their relative efficiency and effectiveness. Here the above typology can be used. Some indication of the current needs of R&D and innovation actors and how these have developed over time is another imperative, in conjunction with assessments of how past and existing policy instruments have or have not satisfied these needs. Such assessments allow the utility and importance of different types of policies and policy instruments to be weighed and taken into consideration when designing new policy mixes. Collecting evidence, or conducting fresh analyses of interactions between policy instruments, is another question at the core of any policy mix analysis. And finally, the issue of policy governance and coordination is one of the most critical elements of the policy mix analysis. 3. Key questions for a country-level Policy Mix analysis 2 See results of these analyses in the 31 Country reviews on the Policy Mix Web site. 9

14 3. Key questions for a country-level Policy Mix analysis Challenges Exhibit 3 Ten Basic Questions Relevant to the Design of Policy Mixes What are the main challenges faced by your National Innovation System, how have they changed over the last five years, and how have they impacted on R&D activity? Objectives What are the main objectives and priorities of R&D policy in your country and how have they changed over the last five years? Gaps (between Challenges and Objectives) Is there a gap between the challenges faced by your country and the main objectives and priorities of government policy? Instruments What policy instruments are in place to support R&D activities in the private and in the public sector? What instruments outside the R&D policy domain (e.g. human resource policies, innovation policies, market stimulation policies etc.) are of particular relevance to R&D activities and increased investment in R&D? Gaps (between Objectives and Instruments) Is there a gap or mismatch between the main policy objectives and the instruments expected to attain them? History How has the usage pattern of R&D policy instruments evolved? Actors Which R&D and innovation actors are targeted by which policy instruments? Importance Which policy instruments have had the greatest impact on R&D expenditure levels? Interactions Is there any evidence of policy instruments interacting either positively or negatively in terms of their impact on R&D expenditure levels? Governance Does the R&D and innovation governance system allow for any form of co-ordination between R&D policy and policies from other domains with potential repercussions for R&D investment levels? 10

15 4. Core issues for Policy Mix design The Policy Mix study concluded that the following five core issues are the most critical ones for Policy Mix design. These core issues point towards the need for coherence, coordination, and effectiveness of policy mixes : 1 Policy Mix and Innovation System Challenges : how to build policy mixes, which respond to the specific challenges faced by a national / regional innovation system. How to ensure a match between policy mix orientation and system s strengths, weaknesses and challenges. 2 Coordination for the Policy Mix : how to ensure appropriate policy coordination across the diverse policy fields, and the various levels of authorities, concerned with the policy mix. What is the potential for bottom-up coordination through integrated policy programmes ( mini-mixes, see discussion of the concept below)? 3 Stakeholder Engagement for Policy Mixes : what are the pros and cons of involving many stakeholders in the design and implementation of policy mixes? 4 Policy Mix Designs : how to design a coherent policy mix. What are the possible routes to follow and how to prioritise between them? Which mixes would best match different paths towards industrial restructuring objectives? How to spur positive interactions, and avoid negative interactions, between policies (taking into account policies from within the R&D domain as well as non-r&d" policies). 5 Implementation, Evaluation and Impacts of Policy Mixes : how to move from evaluation of instruments to evaluation of policy mixes. What are the conditions for efficient implementation of policy mixes? What strategic policy intelligence tools to use for these purposes? 4. Core issues for Policy Mix design Table 1 presents an overview of the above core issues, each divided into sub-questions and matched with a set of examples 3. Key findings of the study under each issue and sub-questions are discussed in turn in the following sections. 3 Further discussion on the questions and the examples mentioned in the table can be found on the Policy Mix Web Site. 11

16 4. Core issues for Policy Mix design Table 1 Overview of Policy Mix Core Issues and Examples Core Issue Sub-questions Examples Policy Mix and Innovation System Challenges Increase of overall R&D expenditure Ensuring adequate human resources for R&D and innovation Responding to new technological opportunities and keeping pace in upcoming fields of technology A need to restructure or reinforce elements of the NIS Improving the interactions between STI system actors Increasing R&D in South Korea Increasing R&D in Austria Ireland s investment in the Higher Education sector Flemish Foresight exercise The US- Nanotechnology Initiative German High-Tech Strategy The challenge for Romania to increase private R&D Building Ireland s Knowledge Economy The cluster approach in the Rhône-Alpes region Core Issue Sub-questions Examples High Level Co-ordination for the Policy Mix Science and Innovation Councils Coordination through mini-mixes Coordination across geographical levels Core Issue Sub-questions Examples Stakeholder Engagement for Policy Mixes Stakeholder involvement in Policy Bodies and in Policy Review and Formulation Japanese Council for Science and Technology Policy The Flemish Council for Science Policy (VRWB) Danish Globalisation Council Innovation Programmes in Key Areas in The Netherlands Pôles de Competitivité in France Cross-border coordination of R&D policy in Øresund National-regional coordination in North-Brabant National-regional coordination in Saxony Stakeholder involvement in the UK s Science and Innovation Investment Framework Involvement of stakeholders in Castilla y Leon to develop the RTDI strategy of the region Stakeholder consultation in the German High- Tech Strategy Core Issue Sub-questions Examples Policy Mix Design Defining Routes Choosing parallel routes for ICT in Hungary Shifts in routes in Finland Good practice in high-tech industries and R&D intensification approaches Interactions between R&D and R&D, and R&D and non-r&d policies Shifts in routes in Sweden German Biotechnology Programmes Friuli/Venezia/Guilia: Integrated initiative to enhance competitiveness of regional clusters The Netherlands ICTRegie The German Pharmaceuticals Initiative 12 Core Issue Sub-questions Examples Implementation, Evaluation and Impacts of Policy Mixes Systems and meta-evaluations Implementation of Policy Mixes Evaluation of NIS and the key policy measures by the Science and Technology Policy Council, Finland The Austrian system evaluation experience The United Kingdom s systems review exercises Setting targets at the system level BMWI: Policy Mix implementation through streamlining, Germany Cross-policy domain implementation in Flanders

17 4.1. Policy Mix and Innovation System Challenges The set of policy actions taken by governments in the field of R&D should relate to the specific challenges in the national innovation system (NIS). An appropriate mix of policies to address these challenges should build on a good analysis of the strengths and weaknesses; the opportunities and bottlenecks in the innovation system. This is why there is no one-size-fitsall standard policy mix. A number of NIS challenges are common to most European countries : 1. Low R&D investments and the need to increase the overall R&D spending (in the public and/or private sectors) 2. Ensuring adequate human resources for R&D and innovation 3. Responding to new technological opportunities and keeping pace in upcoming fields of technology 4. A need to restructure or reinforce elements of the NIS, i.e. mostly changes to structures, processes or framework conditions 5. Improving the interactions between Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) system actors The sets of policy objectives reported fall into three broad categories : those addressing the public sector (strengthening of the science base, human resources for R&D, governance and coordination issues) ; those addressing the private sector (promotion of R&D performed in the business sector, innovation friendly business environment) ; and those linking the two (leveraging the results of public sector research by industry, addressing industry skills needs). Increase of overall R&D expenditure Austria represents a country case that has developed substantial efforts at the start of the century to raise R&D investments both on the public and private sides. A first choice to be made by policy makers in this situation is the set of R&D instruments to be used and the balance, for instance, between direct and indirect measures, and between generic and thematic policies. In practice, this is rather path dependent and rarely follows a rational choice. A second perspective that needs to be reviewed is whether the country is an attractive place to do (industrial) research, and the influence of Non-R&D policies. For firms this is mainly influenced by framework conditions, markets and human resources rather than R&D policy. The case of South Korea is illustrative of a country that has placed important policy attention on the framework conditions for R&D-active business conglomerates. A third perspective which requires a choice is the weight given to the various routes to increase R&D investments (see Policy Mix Design discussion below). If, for example, a country has few indigenous companies conducting R&D a choice could be made to attract foreign companies to invest (in R&D activities) in the country and even relocate their R&D functions. However, this needs a careful assessment of a range of policy interventions and instruments. Policy makers thus need to ask a series of questions : Policy Mix and Innovation System Challenges

18 4.1. Policy Mix and Innovation System Challenges Are the framework conditions (e.g. financial climate, bureaucracy, availability of skilled staff, dynamic business sector, etc.) for foreign investments attractive? If not, these may need a range of Non-R&D policy interventions. Are additional R&D incentives in place for these foreign companies? This could lead to a decision to launch direct or indirect schemes (e.g. fiscal incentives) in favour of private R&D expenditures. Does the country have excellent researchers and universities, which form an attractive partner for private companies? If not, actions have to be taken in the public research sector or with schemes to promote excellence in science. Do regulations (Intellectual Property Rights rules about contract research) and cultural factors influence these partnerships, either positively or negatively? If so, better regulations and awareness actions are available options to alleviate this. This is an example of how policy choices lead to a whole set of considerations that need a mix of policy actions, which are not always within the R&D realm. Ensuring adequate human resources for R&D and innovation This challenge crosses both the public and private R&D domains but its main focus rests on ensuring a supply of trained and skilled personnel to meet the needs of industry. Key targets for addressing this challenge are the higher education sector and the current workforce (for example, through re-training or industry based skills development programmes). Ireland s investment in the Higher Education sector is an example of a country that has managed to positively impact on human resources for the knowledge economy. More specific examples include : The need to ensure supplies of high-quality science and engineering graduates, for the work-force, the science base and in general; and The need to ensure that industry requirements for specific skills are being and will continue to be met. This challenge raises the general issue that, in order to monitor ongoing and future skills needs, close dialogue with industry is required. However, due to differences in the timescales for higher education training capacities and industrial skills requirements, a robust and wellfunctioning higher education system is still required as a buffer to the potentially destabilising effects of the business cycle. The domain of human resources typically spans two policy areas: R&D policy and education. Skills for innovation are, in some countries, dealt with from the education angle (e.g. vocational training) or, in other countries, specifically from the innovation policy area (e.g. training for innovation management skills). Responding to new technological opportunities and keeping pace in upcoming fields of technology In order to keep a dynamic economy and benefit from growth from emerging technology areas, researchers and companies need the strategic intelligence to know what new technology opportunities will emerge and what developments are taking place in the rest of the world. Policy support can be given to develop and gather this strategic intelligence and to facilitate the process of dissemination. Examples include foresight studies (see, for example, the Flemish Foresight exercise) and publicly funded road-mapping exercises. 14

19 In addition and in terms of budgetary weight, more importantly - many governments have invested significant efforts to support research, business start-ups and linkages with existing companies in areas that they have recognised as potentially upcoming fields. ICT, life sciences, biotechnology and nano-technology are typical areas that have been supported through a wide mix of policy measures such as thematic R&D programmes, specialised incubator facilities, regional cluster initiatives and early stage investment schemes. The US Nanotechnology Initiative, involving initiatives both in the R&D and in the non-r&d domain, is a good example of a policy mix approach within this specialisation area. The German High-Tech Strategy is a comprehensive, multi-annual approach by the federal government, combining public and private efforts to increase R&D. A need to restructure or reinforce elements of the NIS On the one side, this challenge is clearly reflected in public sector changes (in relation to governance and functioning) whilst the improvement of framework conditions is of greater relevance to private sector R&D investment. The reform of Universities/Higher Education Institutes and the education system form a specific challenge in Austria and Italy, for example. The need to improve framework conditions (such as regulation, tax systems, etc.) for research and innovation and to enhance innovation capabilities is also encountered in a number of countries. Innovation systems can be unbalanced, for instance, because the public research sector is either very small or very large in comparison with the private research sector. The latter situation holds e.g. in Romania and several new Member States. This leads to strong system mismatches, which cannot be fixed by introducing better linkage programmes and calls for the reinforcing of one or both elements of the system. Ireland has addressed this issue with the Building Ireland s Knowledge Economy Action Plan. In addition, many new Member States have the problem that both parts of the NIS are weakly developed and need simultaneous boosting. This was a challenge faced by South Korea in recent decades but which it has managed to address successfully. Many more countries face the problem that there are no intermediary structures or linkage programmes that help bring the public and private research systems together. One example is that of an Innovation System which has very few startup companies that might underpin growth in emerging technology sectors. Often, the public research system may need restructuring as its organisation or funding model prevents modernisation or multi-disciplinary research. Interventions have been put in place to address such problems, for example, the Technopartner programme in the Netherlands. Improving the interactions between STI system actors 4.1. Policy Mix and Innovation System Challenges Improving the interactions between STI system actors is a major challenge in many countries. One of the major concerns relates to the level of interaction between the public research base and business. The challenge is relevant to the issue of both public sector and private sector R&D investment. Again, a more specific set of related challenges can also be identified, such as : 15

20 4.2. High Level Coordination for the Policy Mix 16 Improving the level and scope of interactions between public and pri- vate R&D performers, promoting industry-science relationships, and increasing knowledge spillovers. Increasing commercialisation, and increasing patenting activity. Increasing the return on public R&D investment. Also related to this set of challenges is the more outward looking need to improve international R&D linkages and/or EU participation. Typical linkage programmes that address these issues are collaborative R&D programmes, technology platforms, cluster policies and regional growth pole policies, support for science parks and university-industry linkage schemes. The regional example of Rhône-Alpes combines several of these instruments High Level Coordination for the Policy Mix According to the Policy Mix Typology Model underpinning this study, a comprehensive policy mix that creates the best conditions for R&D will involve multiple policy domains and multiple influences from other policy domains. Policy Mixes for R&D policy cross the boundaries of the core R&D policy domains. The effectiveness of an R&D Policy Mix is, hence, highly dependent on the quality of the governance of the research and innovation system. In order to set up policies that are complementary and mutually reinforcing, coordination mechanisms across a host of policy actors are vital. Ideally, long-term policy strategies should attempt to integrate the R&D/innovation policy mix with the concerns of other policy areas. Examples are linkages with health (R&D) policy, the policy domains of energy and environment as well as more general innovation and business support policies. High-level political support beyond the strict R&D domain can result in the development of policy strategies, which take account of framework conditions and objectives from adjacent policy domains. Thus, there is a need for high-level political coordination, interdepartmental coordination and coordination across institutions. This involves: 1. The establishment of formal coordination bodies such as high-level horizontal Councils as well as more informal mechanisms of coordination ; 2. Experiments to coordinate policy mixes on a smaller scale through mini-mix approaches: these are initiatives where policy makers have developed a packaged set of instruments deliberately designed to be a coherent whole, addressing various aspects of R&D and innovation; 3. Coordination across geographical levels. Science and Innovation Councils The high-level Science and Innovation Councils established in several countries often represent several ministries (and even the Prime Minister) as well as stakeholder groups. Finland was one of the first countries to install such a Council (The Science and Technology Policy Council), led by the Prime Minister. Other countries have followed this example with variations in role and composition.

21 The Councils can play a role in assessing the entire Innovation System (meta-evaluations), taking a systemic look at the R&D policy portfolio and determining the focus of the Policy Mixes. The mere existence of such a Council does not ensure that it has an impact on defining a more coherent Policy Mix. This depends on aspects such as the mandate, the political weight of the Council, its budgetary influence and its composition. Interesting examples of such Councils are the very broad-based Danish Globalisation Council, the Japanese Council for Science and Technology Policy and the research union of the German High Tech Strategy. The Flemish Council for Science Policy led a Foresight exercise to determine research funding priorities for the region. Coordination through mini-mixes A mini-mix is a packaged policy programme that explicitly uses different types of policy instruments (e.g. human resource initiatives, fiscal exemptions, grant schemes, regulation, etc.) to achieve a specific R&D policy goal (e.g. R&D investments in bio-tech) or to support a specific target group (e.g. new technology-based firms). These instruments can also be non-r&d policies regulation, fiscal, and innovation-oriented. Experiences with these approaches are quite recent and hardly any evaluations have been done to establish the effect of such an approach, which is often intended as a long-term effect, rather than a short-term boost in R&D activities. An essential element is that ministries and or agencies from different policy domains have to work together to establish a joint programme, often using different sources of funding. The French Pôle de Compétitivité is an example that has also inspired the Netherlands (with the bottom-up and user-driven Innovation Programmes in Key Areas) and Wallonia to set up similar initiatives. Conclusions from the mini-mixes analyses are : The assessment of user needs requires some form of stakeholder involvement and/or expert opinion. Governments thus need to develop or mobilise the strategic intelligence for such a process; Stakeholder involvement is particularly strongly developed in the cluster-type mini-mixes and in the thematic packaged programmes. Such involvement ensures that the mini-mix matches the needs of the target group. The government needs to consider the perspective of the tax-payers and ensure that this process is open and transparent. A systematic review of the existing mechanisms for the target group or policy objective is necessary to assess what can be included, what should be streamlined and which new activities need to be set up; There is no single recipe for the implementation of such mini-mixes, they are too context specific; The evaluation and monitoring of mini-mixes is an area that needs further development High Level Coordination for the Policy Mix 17

22 4.3. Stakeholder Engagement for Policy Mixes Coordination across geographical levels Many countries encounter the challenge of having to deal with a multi-governance situation at the regional and national R&D policy level. Countries such as Germany, Austria, Spain and the UK have joint responsibility for R&D policy at regional and at national governance levels. This requires good policy coordination to avoid overlaps, duplications and a lack of critical mass at the regional level. In addition, even regions without a clear R&D policy mandate can be largely affected by decisions taken at central level; for instance, by the location of major research institutions or the establishment of cluster initiatives. North-Brabant and Saxony are examples where this coordination has improved over the years. The Øresund case, which aims to establish a strong knowledge cluster (in biotech) in the joint Danish/Swedish region, is a case which strives to achieve coordination of a mix of R&D policies across borders Stakeholder Engagement for Policy Mixes In R&D policy, typical stakeholders are representatives from the science and business community, although they could also be representatives from societal groups (e.g. labour, environmental groups, patients), policy users (e.g. transport regulators), or intermediary organisations (e.g. hospitals). There are various Policy Bodies that tend to include stakeholders and which can influence a Policy Mix : High-level Policy Coordination Councils ; Strategic Committees identifying high technology opportunities ; Groups convened in strategic intelligence exercises such as foresights and roadmaps ; Stakeholders are also involved in the Policy Review and formulation processes, or meta-analyses of policy mixes. There are pros and cons towards stakeholder involvement in the various stages of the policy cycle. Broad stakeholder involvement in the strategy-setting phase (such as with the UK s Science and Innovation Investment Framework ) ensures that many interests can be taken into account and that a consensus view can be formulated, but it can also hamper a clear prioritisation process and options for radical structural changes if too many (conflicting) interests intervene or wish to maintain the status quo. The involvement of high-level representatives from various policy domains, on the other hand, can have a positive effect on the coherence and coordination of the set of policy instruments. This was the case, for example, with the wide stakeholder consultations that took place during the preparation of the German High-Tech Strategy, or, at regional level for the preparation of the Castilla y Leon RDTI plan. Once priority areas are set, the involvement of stakeholders can improve the relevance of a set of research programmes, for instance for the private sector, or it can promote the level of buy-in from the actors concerned. It can help to fine-tune instruments to the needs of the target groups although it also carries the danger of conflict of interest. 18

23 From an industrial restructuring perspective, it is important to identify and leverage new opportunities that emerge out of new research results. Regular reviews of programmes and measures, often organised or supervised by a steering committee involving major stakeholders, are frequently applied for this purpose. The German High Tech Strategy is one example, the Danish Globalisation Strategy another. What is more, a bottom-up approach for defining the research agenda, which addresses a large number of actors from academia and industry, tends to be advantageous for identifying new opportunities early and broadly since it maximises the information available on promising new fields of research and its application in the respective high-tech sector in the research community. Stakeholders are often included in strategic intelligence activities such as sectoral competitiveness analyses, techno-economic studies on the impact of new technologies, and technology foresight studies. Some of the newly established public R&D infrastructures follow a public-private partnership approach that actively involves industry stakeholders as shareholders. Implementation can be improved if regular communication with stakeholders and addressees of R&D policy measures is organised in order to be informed of their experiences with policy actions in non- R&D policy fields, particularly where these may conflict with attempts to increase R&D and innovation activities. In the Non-R&D domains, the involvement of key (societal) stakeholders in the evolution of regulatory structures and institutions is likely to promote the acceptance and diffusion of new technologies such as nanotechnology. Informing stakeholders at an early phase as to when new policies will be launched, increases predictability and gives stakeholders greater confidence in the planning of their longer-term R&D investments and related activities Policy Mix Design 4.4. Policy Mix Design How can policy makers design optimal Policy Mixes for R&D? Three challenges can be identified in this respect : 1. Determining priorities between the various routes that may be followed towards the overall goal of raising R&D expenditures; 2. Choosing between a strategy aiming at intensifying R&D and innovation across many industries and sectors of activity, and a strategy to focus on specific high-tech sectors which will drive the economy towards higher knowledge intensity; 3. Anticipating and optimising the potential interactions between different types of R&D instruments and between R&D instruments and instruments from other policy domains or Non-R&D instruments. 19

24 4.4. Policy Mix Design Defining routes To build efficient and balanced policy mixes for R&D, policy-makers have to define priorities amongst possible routes to raise R&D investments. This needs to be based on a clear picture of the needs of the National Innovation System and its evolution, and on the profile and effectiveness of the actual policy system. Hence, the prioritisation process requires a high level of strategic intelligence, including on the prospective challenges facing the NIS. The routes cover the main ways of increasing public and private R&D expenditures in a country. Each route is broadly associated with a different target group, though there are overlaps across routes. These routes, as depicted in Exhibit 4, are : 1) promoting the establishment of new indigenous R&D performing firms 2) stimulating greater R&D investment in R&D performing firms 3) stimulating firms that do not yet perform R&D 4) attracting R&D-performing firms from abroad 5) stimulating public-private collaboration in R&D 6) increasing R&D in the public sector. The relative emphasis placed on the various routes can have very different implications for the nature and orientation of the resulting R&D activities and the dynamics of public-private interactions and development paths : An emphasis on Route 2, for example, could help reinforce existing R&D strengths in the private sector ; An emphasis on Routes 1 and 3, however, would be appropriate when the aim is to stimulate R&D activities in new technology areas or industrial sectors ; An emphasis on Route 4 suggests itself within the broader context of industrial modernisation strategies where the aim is to upgrade existing low-to medium tech sectors via the intensification of knowledge-based activities ; Emphasising Route 6 is necessary when the policy priority is to strengthen the science base, but following this route in parallel with Route 5 helps to ensure that the development paths of the public and private sectors remain linked and relevant to each other. 20

25 Exhibit 4 Routes to Raise R&D Investment Levels Efforts to Increase Private Sector R&D Efforts to Increase Public-Private R&D Efforts to Increase Public Sector R&D 4.4. Policy Mix Design Route 1 Efforts to promote the establishment of new, dommestic R&D performing firms Route 2 Efforts to stimulate greater R&D investment by non-r&d performing firms Route 3 Efforts to stimulate R&D investment by non-r&d performing firms Route 4 Efforts to attract R&D-performing firms from abroad Route 5 Efforts to increase R&D by stimulating public-private sector collaboration Route 6 Efforts to increase R&D levels in public sector research organisations (PROs) Source: Policy Mix Project Team (2006), Thematic Report: Routes for Policy Mix for R&D, Report to the Research DG. 21

26 4.4. Policy Mix Design 22 In practice, countries usually follow a combination of all the routes. In many cases, the prioritisation between routes is the result of a de facto accumulation of instruments and initiatives, rather than an explicit policy choice. In most cases, priorities amongst the routes are rather immobile or fixed: there is path-dependency and inertia in structures, programmes, approaches, etc., which makes it difficult to change the priorities even when the perception of a need for changes arises. A cumulative process and incremental approach in the prioritisation of routes seems to be the general rule. Policies are influenced by policy goals other than those aimed at raising R&D expenditures: competitiveness and job creation are overarching priorities, and R&D is seen as but one of many means to achieve such priorities. The observation of policy practice denotes a trend towards a prioritisation process which tends to reinforce strengths rather than address weaker parts of the system. A long-term shift in the priority of routes can be discerned : Route 6 (supporting public R&D activities) and Route 2 (supporting private R&D activities in R&D active firms) are the most traditional and obvious areas of action, justified through market failure arguments, and in line with a linear vision of innovation. With the diffusion of a more systemic and firm-centered vision of innovation, a shift towards Route 5 (which addresses science-industry linkages) has become widespread, and more recently, there has been increased attention to specific categories of actors: new-technology-based firms (Route 1). Less frequently, an emphasis on Route 3 has been emerging, with a view to extend the innovative base by addressing those companies that are not yet involved in R&D activities. The latter route was, e.g. found to be prioritised in the policy mix for ICT in Hungary. While the first constellation, Route 6 + Route 2, was generally dealt with by two separate Ministries (for Science and for the Economy), the other routes call for greater interaction between those (and other) policy areas. This shift reflects a general broadening of policies from a science-driven view, towards a more holistic approach to innovation. Route 4 (attracting R&D performing firms from abroad) is seldom a priority as such: in many cases, policy instruments are deployed without discriminating between domestic or foreign R&D performers as users. The conjunction of other Routes may act as a substitute to Route 4. There is also a strong complementary relationship between Route 6 and Route 5 : for example, changes in modes of funding and in incentives structures in the public sector might directly contribute to the objectives of Route 5. Route 3 (broadening the base of R&D performing firms) receives scant policy priority. This is in line with a policy of supporting the strongest, although in several countries this lack of attention is considered as a weakness (for example, in Denmark). However, it is not easy to see how to pursue such a route, which deviates quite markedly from the normal direction followed by traditional R&D policies. Route 1 (promoting the creation of new, R&D-based firms) shows strong complementarities with Routes 6 and Route 5. Sweden for example has for a long time been successful with its emphasis on supporting Route 6 (increasing R&D in the public research sector) combined with Route 5 (linking large R&D firms with this public R&D). In recent years, there has been an increasing concern because of the fact that many Swedish firms have been bought by foreign companies and thus may be prone to having their operations and, in particular, their R&D functions moved abroad. Moreover,

27 deregulation and liberalisation have put an end to the previous intimate public private partnerships that were such an important factor in the emergence and growth of several Swedish multinational corporations (MNCs). As a result more emphasis is gradually put on research in SMEs (Route 2) and on increasing the rate of formation and growth of new technology-based companies (Route 1). A traditional division of labour between the national and the regional level tended to follow the pattern of large-scale generic funding for the public and private sectors (mainly through Route 6 and Route 2) at the national level, and filling the gaps in networking and linkages with other parts of the industrial fabric (mainly through Route 5 and Route 3) at the regional level. A more recent trend in the best performing regions covered in this study, is to fund poles of excellence, thereby following Routes 6, 2 and 5, but shifting attention away from Route 3. The portfolio composition for each route does not present a standard pattern : in each country or regional environment, various types of instruments are used to reach the goals of the Routes, according to policy traditions, the specific needs of the system, etc. Each Route is thus directly or indirectly served by a large variety of instruments, as evidenced in Table 2. This table should not be taken as representing a dogmatic classification of instruments: depending on their actual implementation mode and the policy environment, they might be more suited to serve different routes in different contexts. The instruments presented in Table 2 come from an analysis of actual policy mixes in 34 countries carried out during the study, and hence, differ a bit from the abstract list provided earlier in Exhibit Policy Mix Design 23

28 Table 2: Policy instruments and broad routes to increase R&D investments (XX: very important contribution; X: important contribution: (X): some contribution expected) 4.4. Policy Mix Design Policy instruments ROUTE 1 : promote establishment of new indigenous R&D-performing firms ROUTE 2 : stimulate greater R&D investment in R&D-performing firms ROUTE 3 : stimulate R&D investments in firms nonperforming R&D ROUTE 4 : attract R&Dperforming firms from abroad ROUTE 5 : stimulating public-private collaboration in R&D ROUTE 6 : increase R&D in public sector Institutional funding at universities & PROs Large infrastructure and equipment at univ&pros Competitive funding at universities & PROs Direct aid schemes for R&D in companies Reform of universities and PROs X X (X) XX X XX X XX X X XX X (X) X X X 24 Policy categories R&D Domain R&D policy generic

29 R&D policy sectoral R&D / Innovation policy Linkage R&D / Innovation policy IPR Strategic research centres Thematic research programmes public sector oriented Thematic research programmes private sector oriented Competence Poles and centres, collective, applied research centres Programmes for public-private collaborative research Technology transfer units Mobility schemes university-industry University Liaison offices Spin-off support programmes X X XX X XX X X X X XX X XX XX X (X) XX (X) (X) XX XX (X) XX (X) X XX X XX XX X (X) XX (X) XX X XX XX XX X XX XX X Research Networks X X Subsidy for patents applications XX X 4.4. Policy Mix Design 25

30 Policy categories R&D specific financial and fiscal policy R&D specific education policy 4.4. Policy Mix Design Policy instruments ROUTE 1 : promote establishment of new indigenous R&D-performing firms ROUTE 2 : stimulate greater R&D investment in R&D-performing firms ROUTE 3 : stimulate R&D investments in firms nonperforming R&D ROUTE 4 : attract R&Dperforming firms from abroad ROUTE 5 : stimulating public-private collaboration in R&D ROUTE 6 : increase R&D in public sector Tax incentives for researchers in public sector (also foreign) Tax incentives for researchers in private sector Fiscal incentives for R&D investments in firms XX XX X X (X) XX XX X X (X) Venture capital funds XX X X (X) Guarantee schemes XX X Competitions on scientific themes for students Information-training for science professors X (X) (X) (X) XX 26

31 (X) XX Grants for PhD and post-doc researchers (public) (X) XX Schemes for attracting foreign researchers (public) R&D specific employment policy X XX X (X) Schemes for attracting foreign researchers (private) XX XX (X) X X Subsidies for hiring researchers in companies XX Improvements in researchers careers Finance Domain X XX X XX Reduction of general company tax level X XX X XX Reduction of taxes on labour Financial and fiscal policy XX Improvement of fiscal and legal status of independent workers Business Angels XX Growth oriented strategies (X) (X) (X) X (X) Macroeconomic policy Low interest rates, Price stability, Policy Mix Design

32 4.4. Policy Mix Design 28 ROUTE 6 : increase R&D in public sector ROUTE 5 : stimulating public-private collaboration in R&D ROUTE 4 : attract R&Dperforming firms from abroad ROUTE 3 : stimulate R&D investments in firms nonperforming R&D ROUTE 2 : stimulate greater R&D investment in R&D-performing firms ROUTE 1 : promote establishment of new indigenous R&D-performing firms Policy instruments Policy categories Human Capital Domain (X) (X) X (X) (X) Life-long learning promotion Education policy Training centres (X) X X (X) (X) (X) X X (X) (X) Obligation for enterprises to invest in training actions (X) X X (X) (X) Training cheques, support for training actions organised by enterprises X XX X X X Youth placements in enterprises for technical training Technology at School (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) X X (X) XX X Reduction of tax pressure on salaries Employment policy X X X X X Incentives for hiring specific categories of employees (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) Young parents in employment policy X (X) XX (X) X Researcher-friendly immigration policy

33 Innovation Domain XX X X XX (X) Administrative simplification for companies Innovation policy generic X X XX X X Enterprise support services, innovation audits XX XX (X) X X X Science parks and enterprise centres (including incubators) XX (X) (X) (X) (X) Entrepreneurship Action Plan (X) (X) (X) (X) Action Plan for Information Society (X) XX XX X XX XX X Competitiveness poles and clusters Innovation policy sectoral (X) (X) (X) (X) Reform of standards and norms X X X X Subsidies for investments in companies Other policies - industry Industrial estates X (X) (X) X (X) (X) (X) X Support for exporting companies XX Foreign investors policy Other policies - trade Policy Mix Design

34 Policy categories Policy instruments Other policies - defence Other policies consumer protection Other policies health and safety Other policies - environment Other policies regional development Other policies - competition Other Defence-oriented Other policies social security Defence-oriented public procurement Military research projects Regulations: focus on energy reductions, environment protection Increased use of European Structural Funds for knowledge society Opening up of markets 4.4. Policy Mix Design ROUTE 1 : promote establishment of new indigenous R&D-performing firms ROUTE 2 : stimulate greater R&D investment in R&D-performing firms ROUTE 3 : stimulate R&D investments in firms nonperforming R&D ROUTE 4 : attract R&Dperforming firms from abroad ROUTE 5 : stimulating public-private collaboration in R&D ROUTE 6 : increase R&D in public sector X X (X) (X) (X) X X (X) (X) X Those policy instruments shape framework conditions for the activities of companies and research institutions, and are likely to impact on the general context for undertaking research and development activities. The impact is indirect, and varies across activities (e.g. health and safety regulations have an important impact on public and private R&D activities in the food, or pharmaceutical sectors). 30

35 Increasingly, modern agglomeration strategies, e.g. policies and policy instruments designed to support a range of R&D and innovation actors within clusters or competitiveness poles (variously structured around regions, technologies or sectors), actively promote developments along multiple routes and are supported by regional, national and international support bodies. This was found to be the case with several instruments of the Finnish policy portfolio. In such instances, the need for greater degrees of communication, coordination and coherence between national, regional and international policies and policymakers is paramount. In addition, depending on their particular characteristics, allegedly similar instruments might serve different routes. Policies geared towards the improvement of human capital availability contribute to all routes: these policies appear as essential building blocks for policy portfolios aiming to raise R&D in all configurations of priorities. Moreover, there is often a certain degree of myopia in the policy-making process, wherein only a limited subset of instruments is explicitly considered as contributing to the Routes objectives. One important finding of the analysis of policy portfolios menus associated with each route, is that non-r&d policies are important for the demand-side. Thus, market creation forms an indirect way to promote R&D investments in a large set of firms (Route 3) and for Foreign Direct Investment (Route 4), in particular, but also for R&D performing firms (Route 2) and New Technology Based Firms (Route 1). Hence, policy instruments from fields other than R&D policy, are likely to be of crucial importance, even if their impact on the objective of raising R&D investments in an economy is indirect. This brings us back to the challenge for increased or better policy coordination across policy domains in order to assess the respective importance and ensure good integration between all policy instruments. The fact that Science and Innovation policies are, in many environments, still pursuing parallel courses, represents a hindrance. In this context, there may be lessons to be learned from the role of competitiveness poles or other mini-mixes instruments to ensure such linkages between policy domains, from a bottom-up perspective. Good practice in high-tech industries and R&D intensification approaches 4.4. Policy Mix Design Designing appropriate Policy Mixes is a great challenge for those countries that aim for industrial restructuring. Two principal ways to design industrial restructuring policies towards higher knowledge intensity can be identified, and are depicted in Exhibit 5 : 1. The high-tech industry approach rests on the preferential support of pre-defined sectors that particularly depend on R&D and new knowledge ( high-tech industries ), and that promise to produce new technologies, which are likely to have substantial effects on larger parts of the economy. Basically, the high-tech industry approach aims at helping R&D-intensive sectors to grow fast. At the same time, policy may avoid the subsidisation of low-tech industries that show signs of stagnation, and may instead actively replace those that lose international competitiveness with new high-tech activities. If such a policy is successful, a country s sectoral structure will change considerably towards high-tech sectors, with an 31

36 4.4. Policy Mix Design accompanied change in the average R&D intensity of the economy. The hightech industry approach to industrial restructuring is thus very closely linked to R&D policy and, in many countries, it is regarded as part - and often even as the "heart" - of R&D policy. Examples of this approach include the US National Nanotechnology Initiative, a dedicated policy action to boost R&D in a particular high-tech area, and the German Biotechnology Programmes. 2. The R&D intensification approach attempts to raise knowledge intensity across many industries simultaneously, without necessarily prioritising any particular sector. It is typically part of a wider strategy to adjust the industrial structure of an economy aiming at modernising a country's or region's business sector. The key objective is to increase a country's or region's competitiveness by bringing as many firms as possible in as many sectors as possible onto a knowledge-based competitive strategy. If this policy is successful, industry structures will change rather little, but the economy s average R&D intensity will increase substantially. This approach is typically followed by countries or regions that start with a rather low R&D intensity in their economy, which partly results from a specialisation on sectors having low or medium technology intensity. This strategy commonly involves a number of other policy areas such as trade and industry policy, monetary and currency policy, fiscal policy, wage policy, education policy and public investment in technical infrastructures. R&D policy is likely to play only a minor role in this concert of policies. Examples of this approach are the ICT-Regie in the Netherlands or the regional policy in Friuli/Venezia/Giulia. Exhibit 5 Schematic Representation of the Two Main Approaches to R&D-oriented Industrial Restructuring High-tech Industry Approach R&D Intensification Approach 32 Source: Policy Mix Project Team (2006), Thematic Report: R&D Policies for Industrial Restructuring, Report to DG RTD

37 The following success factors are identified for high-tech industrial restructuring strategies : Adequate strategic intelligence efforts to identify the most appropriate target sectors; The bottom-up identification of research priorities after the top-down identification of target sectors; Adequate consideration of regional strengths and capacities and the involvement of the appropriate regional authorities in policy formulation and implementation; Efforts to identify and implement an appropriate sequence for the deployment of different public support activities, e.g. policies to develop a strong science base; policies to link this with industry ; policies to develop adequate regulatory frameworks; policies to stimulate demand, etc ; The adoption of a coordinated approach to the deployment of R&D policies and Non-R&D policies; Efforts to ensure that sector-specific support instruments complement rather than duplicate generic R&D support instruments; Support for the establishment of strong infrastructures to support and strengthen the science base relevant to the targeted sectors ; Complementary efforts to link the science base to industrial actors in the targeted sectors; The application of training and mobility measures geared to satisfying the immediate short-term skill needs of rapidly growing target sectors while educational policies readjust to satisfy longer term needs; The precautionary adjustment of regulatory regimes likely to affect the future diffusion of the innovations, technologies, products and services likely to emerge from new high-tech sectors ; Support for the early internationalisation of firm activities in emerging high-tech sectors; Recognition that a multitude of factors in the broader environment in which R&D and innovation actors operate can have dramatic influences on the growth dynamics of emergent high-tech sectors, with a consequent need for policy to both track these changes and adapt flexibly in response to them. Generally speaking, although R&D policies constitute the most critical component of R&D intensification strategies, generic efforts to improve the overall framework conditions affecting the environment in which R&D and innovation actors are involved are also vital, particularly those that encourage innovation and stimulate demand for innovative products and services. Many of the success factors associated with R&D intensification strategies are thus similar to those for high-tech industry strategies. These include the need to deploy a range of R&D support instruments and the need to harmonise R&D policies with other Non-R&D policies, particularly those that ensure adequate supplies of human capital, help create a favourable business environment and stimulate demand Policy Mix Design

38 4.4. Policy Mix Design 34 Interactions between policy instruments from within the R&D policy domain and between R&D and non-r&d policy domains Multiple R&D policy instruments, when in operation simultaneously, can interact with each other, either positively or negatively (i.e. they enhance or hamper each other s effectiveness). There are only a few examples in Europe where the interactions between concurrent instruments have been deliberately taken into account while designing new, or revising existing measures. Central in the R&D-R&D interaction debates are the trade-offs between indirect and direct policies and, secondly, between generic and thematic (e.g. sectoral, technology specific) policies. A further dimension is the interaction between national and regional policy mixes that are mostly complementary but which, in some countries, also show a replication of national structures at the regional level. One strategy followed in order to favour positive interaction is to concentrate R&D policy instruments in a limited number of intermediary agencies. This was the course followed in Austria, e.g. The United Kingdom provides one good example of a contradictory interaction between two elements of the policy mix. The example concerns the aims of promoting excellence in the research that is funded within universities and that of stimulating greater academic/industry knowledge transfer and collaboration. The former aim is supported by block funding of university research activities by the Higher Education Funding Councils, whilst the latter is supported by a number of measures. This creates tensions in the applications of the two types of instruments. In Belgium, because of the organisation of competences in the federal state, there is no co-ordination with respect to R&D instruments across the regions. Due to the governance structure of the country the number of R&D policy instruments in place is complex. Companies being active throughout Belgium face different policy mixes according to a location criterion. Direct and indirect R&D support measures are provided by different levels of authorities and may cause duplication of efforts or foregone synergies. However, no analysis of complementarities or duplication of efforts have been undertaken so far. With respect to interactions between R&D and non-r&d policies, the most visible and prevalent interactions and impacts fall into two broad categories. The first category concerns support for R&D performed by different ministries, including those responsible for so-called Non-R&D policy domains (Health, Transport, Energy and Environment, Agriculture, etc.) and those responsible for R&D policy itself (typically those ministries responsible for the generic support of R&D in the public and private sectors). The second category concerns the integration of R&D activities with other activities that are the responsibility of ministries in Non-R&D policy domains (e.g., R&D and innovation support actions or, on a grander scale, between sets of policies aimed at improving R&D intensity, stimulating innovation, industrial restructuring, and regional and economic development generally). In many countries, the involvement of multiple ministries in the development of coherent policies for R&D can be problematic. Not only is there often a strong degree of rivalry between ministries and agencies, but it can also be difficult to motivate Non-R&D ministries (i.e. ministries whose primary orientation is not towards support for R&D) to work harmoniously with R&D ministries (whose primary responsibilities involve support for R&D). Key elements to overcome such resistance include :

39 High-level political backing to ensure that all ministries and agencies take the need for a coordinated approach seriously ; The involvement of Non-R&D ministry representatives (including State Ministers) in working groups charged with identifying priority technology areas and research topics ; The articulation of a clear strategy that takes into account all relevant stages of the R&D and innovation process, including the interplay with regulatory frameworks and broader, non-r&d related policy issues ; A focus on the ultimate development of concrete initiatives involving joint efforts across ministries that can be realised in the short-term and are likely to have early, visible impacts ; Pragmatic arrangements to ensure the continued visibility of R&D-related issues within Non-R&D policy domains, including the establishment of networks and partnerships between specified contact points within R&D and Non-R&D ministries. Rules and regulations set within Non-R&D policy domains can sometimes have a strong impact on R&D activities in specific technology areas and the R&D policy mechanisms used to support them. Obvious examples include the impact of health and safety policies related to the introduction of new drugs and their impact on biotechnology research, or EU regulations governing the use of genetically modified crops and the conduct of stem cell research. In areas like these, when there is a conflict between policy objectives and regulatory frameworks in Non-R&D domains and the conduct of research relevant to these domains, the ongoing challenge is not to ensure that the perspective of the research community takes precedence over the various social, political and ethical viewpoints underpinning the design of regulatory frameworks and policies in different fields. Rather, it is to ensure that mechanisms exist for the perspectives of all interested parties to be taken into account when reformulating these frameworks. Broad-based, inclusive consultation exercises during policy formulation exercises are one obvious way of doing this, but another approach pioneered as part of the German Pharmaceuticals Initiative also has merit. This set out to promote long-lasting linkages between actors in the research community, user communities and regulatory authorities via a competition for funding that invited consortia of all different types of stakeholders to submit concepts for new business models interlinking the various actors and stages along the research, commercialisation, regulation and user chain Policy Mix Design 35

40 4.5. Implementation, Evaluation and Impacts of Policy Mixes 4.5. Implementation, Evaluation and Impacts of Policy Mixes While evaluation approaches and methodologies aimed at the programme level have improved in the R&D community, the evaluation and monitoring of policy mixes proves to be a challenge. Rather than individual policy evaluations, a policy mix evaluation would require system evaluations, meta-evaluations or, at least, a synchronisation of the evaluation of multiple programmes. In addition, the results from such evaluations must be fed into the policy development cycle, at a variety of levels. The implementation of more effective policy mixes requires that institutional barriers between ministries, agencies, councils and other implementation bodies become much more open and flexible. Implementing an effective set of instruments from different NIS perspectives, monitoring how these instruments influence each other (negatively and positively) and how target groups use the different instruments, and establishing linkages between stakeholders across different policy domains (e.g. life-science researchers with hospitals) requires that institutional barriers for these border-crossing collaborations are minimised. These aspects have proven to be a major challenge, which often needs to be addressed by making changes in the governance of science and technology. Hence, conducting effective policy mix design requires both : 1. Systems and meta evaluations 2. Efficient implementation mechanisms. Systems and meta-evaluations As Policy Mixes should address the challenges of the National Innovation System, one could expect that countries would have regular evaluations of the Innovation System, coupled with meta-evaluations of the policy mixes in place. In practice, few countries have done such system evaluation exercises and even fewer have coupled these to a meta-evaluation of the R&D Policy instrument portfolio or the even wider Policy Mix. Examples where such exercises have been done are Finland, the UK (the Sainsbury review) and, partially, in Germany and the Netherlands. In the Finnish case, the meta-evaluation had a significant impact on the allocation of funding to parts of the system. In the case of Germany, the emphasis was on the science system, in the case of The Netherlands it was an analysis of all R&D policies in all policy domains and resulted in a streamlining of policy instruments. The UK s Sainsbury Review led to the implementation of several of the report s recommendations and a re-configuration of parts of the policy mix. Austria is also undergoing a systems evaluation. Other examples of system wide reviews are the CREST - Open Method of Coordination peer reviews of policy mixes held in eleven countries so far 4. These meta-evaluations are often done through a mix of background and evaluation studies and high-level expert (and stakeholder) panels. The impacts of Policy Mixes are difficult to establish and manifest themselves over a longer period. As Policy Mixes tend to change regularly and, in some countries, along quite short policy cycles, the effects can be seen best in the catching up countries which managed to boost R&D efforts over one or two decades. 4 Available at 36

41 Implementation of Policy Mixes The implementation of Policy Mixes at national or regional levels is rarely subject to explicit coordination strategies. Evaluations, monitoring and target setting are mostly undertaken at the single policy instrument level. There are however some signs that more consideration has recently been given to coherent policy mix implementation, through: The establishment of interdepartmental policy units for developing and monitoring policies ; The merger or collaboration of agencies (for instance in the area of science and innovation) such as the Environment-Energy Technology Platform established in Flanders under the aegis of the two relevant Ministries ; The implementation of mini-mixes which often combine more than one responsible ministry or agency, sometimes in national and regional authorities ; Some streamlining of policies to make the policy mix more transparent for the users (such as the streamlining operation carried out by the German federal Ministry for Industry and Innovation). The Policy Mix study identified a few cases where explicit targets were set at the Innovation System or Policy Mix level in order to monitor progress of the entire Policy Mix. One example concerns the UK s Science and Innovation Investment Framework (SIIF): within the SIIF, detailed provisions are made for monitoring and assessment against a series of deliverables, milestones and performance indicators. Other examples are the German High Tech Strategy and the Dutch Mini-mix Point One Implementation, Evaluation and Impacts of Policy Mixes 37

42

43 5. State-of-play with Policy Mix Developments The current state of play concerning existing policy mixes in the EU and beyond, as observed during the Policy Mix study, can be summarised as follows : Policy mixes with an impact on the performance of the R&D and innovation system and on R&D investment levels are largely the result of incremental policy accretion rather than the result of conscious and deliberate efforts to construct complementary sets of policies ; This situation is slowly changing as policymakers become more familiar with policy mix concepts and deliberate efforts are made to orchestrate joined-up policy-making ; Many of these efforts to improve policy coherence take the form of network reforms, i.e. efforts to increase the degree of connectivity and communication between the different elements of governance structures ; The majority of instruments taken into consideration within existing R&D and innovation policy mixes are conventional R&D and innovation policy instruments with direct rather than indirect impacts on R&D and innovation system performance, though there is increasing interest in promoting coherence between these instruments and policy instruments promoting market development and nurturing the supply of human resources ; The largest gaps in terms of the deployment of policy instruments concern demand-side instruments that directly stimulate the demand for R&D and innovation. Some countries are actively seeking to formulate and implement R&D and innovation friendly procurement policies and to use public sector instruments to develop lead markets, and many other countries are showing an interest in these developments, but successful examples are still rare ; The policy mixes in existence in different countries are all characterised by a complex set of balances between different types of instruments. In some countries, for example, fiscal instruments for the support of R&D predominate over direct instruments, whereas in others they are not used at all. Another example concerns the balance between research funds awarded to institutions and those won competitively by individual researchers. There are few observable patterns linking contexts and balances ; Although there is potential scope for positive, neutral and negative interactions between different policy instruments (e.g. between direct R&D support instruments and indirect fiscal R&D support schemes), there are few instances where distinctly negative impacts can be observed ; Very few countries or regions have clearly articulated high-level goals and overarching strategies that are tightly linked or highly coordinated with the goals and strategies of individual R&D and innovation-related ministries and agencies, which often appear to be formulated in relative isolation from each other. Again, however, there are signs of change, with a number of countries constituting high-level communication and coordination mechanisms to help improve policy coherence ; State-of-play with Policy Mix Developments

44 5. State-of-play with Policy Mix Developments Policy mixes serve the needs of different sets of actors in different settings and the balance of support for these different groupings is often dictated by their comparative political power. Support for university researchers, academies of science and research institutions is dominant, for example, when there is a weak industrial base with very little political muscle. There is some indication, however, that the foci of policy mixes are shifting towards those determined by assessments of higher level needs (e.g. the need to build up an industrial base rather than continue to focus support on the science base) or socio-economic challenges (e.g. the need to focus support on R&D and innovation related to societal challenges such as climate change) ; The foci of policy mixes are also determined, to a large extent, by considerations of starting points, end points and realistic routes linking them. Countries with weakly developed R&D and innovation systems and scarce capital and human resources often cannot afford to tackle all weaknesses at the same time, thus necessitating a sequential rather than parallel focus on efforts to rectify these weaknesses. Some countries in this position, for example, have chosen to focus initially on efforts to support the development of the science base, complementing these efforts with policies aimed at the business R&D and innovation domain only when the science base is deemed sufficiently strong. In contrast, countries with strongly developed R&D and innovation systems tend to adopt parallel fine-tuning strategies designed to build on existing strengths and rectify modest weaknesses along a broad front ; In terms of routes capable of raising R&D investment levels, these variously involve focusing on different combinations of ways of raising public and private sector expenditure, e.g. via attempts to raise levels amongst existing R&D performers ; efforts to create new R&D performing start-ups; or efforts to attract R&D performers from abroad, etc. Across the EU, various combinations are used in different settings, though few if any countries appear to have deliberately weighed up the relative advantages of the different possible combinations; In terms of policy formulation processes, although there are signs that the use of inclusive consultation exercises is becoming more widespread, these are still generally limited to narrow stakeholder groups rather than the broader sets of stakeholders affected by comprehensive policy mixes spanning a number of related policy domains ; The use of strategic intelligence generated by strategic policy intelligence tools (SPITs) such as foresight exercises, benchmarking reviews and comprehensive monitoring and evaluation schemes is also increasing, though reliance on these tools varies dramatically across the EU, with human resource constraints limiting their use in some of the newer or weaker Member States. 40

45 6. Conclusions and future needs The analyses carried out within the Policy Mix study point towards a large gap between existing policy practice and the requirement for coherent and efficient policy mixes for R&D. Improvements in policy mix design will thus necessitate efforts to promote awareness of policy mix concepts and to develop strategic intelligence capabilities at the various levels involved in policy mix design and implementation. In most countries and regions, this will involve greater investment not only in forward looking exercises concerned with delineating and weighing policy options for the future, but also backward looking exercises assessing the performance of past policies. Monitoring and evaluation practices are improving in many countries, particularly those concerned with the evaluation of single policy instruments such as R&D support programmes. However, these will need to be complemented by experiments with whole system evaluations along the lines of the current attempt in Austria to formulate an overview of the impact of all relevant policies on the development of the Austrian R&D and innovation system. Strategic intelligence capabilities are typically most deficient in those countries and regions least equipped in capital and human resource terms to invest and develop them. The scope for countries and regions such as these to benefit from cross-border, mutual learning platforms focusing on topics such as the benchmarking of policy mix practices is thus very large. There is also a need for further research concerning policy mixes. First of all, there will be a continuing need for empirical studies to build on the work of the Policy Mix study and track the spread of policy mix concepts and their application in different settings. Continued work on the functioning of innovation systems will lead to further insights with implications for policy and the formulation and implementation of policy mixes capable of improving the functioning of these systems. There will also be a need for a greater focus on the relationship between policies and innovation systems. Attempts to encourage the greater use of strategic policy intelligence tools in the formulation of targeted policy mixes would benefit from a greater understanding of all the other social, economic, cultural and political factors that influence the process of policymaking in different innovation systems. Research throwing light on the desirability or need for policies in different contextual circumstances is also needed. Policy mix changes often take considerable periods of time to impact upon the dynamics of system evolution, and frequent changes in policy mixes could well be counterproductive. An even more critical focus for research concerns the need to find ways of improving the formulation and implementation of policy mixes, i.e. research needs to focus on the key evaluation issue of efficiency as well as on the issues of effectiveness and impact. 6. Conclusions and future needs 41

46

47 Annex : The Policy Mix Study and Web Site The Policy Mix study contract ( Monitoring and analysis of policies and public financing instruments conducive to higher levels of R&D investments ) was awarded in December 2005 by the European Commission ( Research DG) to a consortium led by UNU-MERIT, a research institute of the University of Maastricht (The Netherlands) and the United Nations University. The other partners of the consortium were : INTRASOFT International (Luxembourg); Joanneum Research (Austria); PREST/MIoIR University of Manchester (United Kingdom); Technopolis (The Netherlands); Wise Guys Ltd. (United Kingdom); ZEW (Germany). The main objective of the study was defined by the European Commission as follows: monitor and analyse policies and public financing instruments which are conducive to higher levels of R&D investment both by the public and private sector, in order to foster the design, implementation and evaluation in the EU of policy mixes which are appropriate for increasing R&D investment towards 3% of the GDP. The project ran for 40 months from December 2005 to April 2009 and comprised a series of tasks: Task 1 Review of Policies and Instruments Capable of Raising R&D Investments This ran over the first year (2006): the main goal was to develop a framework and use it as the basis for reviews of policy mixes in 31 countries. A comparative analysis of these country reviews was then carried out, focusing primarily on interactions between R&D policies but also on interactions between R&D policies and policies in other areas (e.g. innovation policies). Task 2 Policy Mix Case Studies This ran over the second year (2007) : the work consisted in 34 policy mix case studies designed to illustrate good practices and enrich the conceptual framework. Three types of case studies were carried out: national, regional and sectoral. The policy mix in each case was viewed through one of more of six lenses, corresponding to particular themes or issues of relevance to a greater understanding of policy mixes. Six thematic reports were produced, each one based on a synthesis of the findings at all levels for a particular lens or theme. Task 3 A Policy Tool Box for the Design and Implementation of Policy Mixes This ran over the third year (2008) : a policy analysis framework was established and tested as a support to policy makers. This took the form the Policy Mix Web Site. Within this, the results of Tasks 1 and 2 were organised and structured in such a way as to enable policy makers to quickly identify information relevant to their own interests and policy contexts. 43 Annex : The Policy Mix Study and Web Site

48 Annex : The Policy Mix Study and Web Site Task 4 Validation, Exploitation and Dissemination Activities These ran over the whole project period ( ). They involved : The constitution of an Expert Group that followed the work and participated in three Validation Workshops. The aim was to ensure policy relevance of the work carried out by the research team; The organisation of five National Dissemination Seminars that aimed to familiarise policymakers with the results of the study and the use of the Web Site, as well as promoting the spread of policy mix concepts and practices in the wider policymaking community ; The implementation of the Web Site and publication of a Policy Mix report. The Policy Mix Web Site : The Policy Mix Web Site contains all the material prepared during the course of the Policy Mix study. The information is presented in a way that allows users to access material relevant to their own needs and contexts. The user may start either by exploring links to all parts of the site, or by using a QUICK ENTRY mode (accessed via a button labelled POLICY MIX AT A GLANCE). All the content elements are interlinked so that the user can easily navigate from concepts to examples. The three main headings under which material is organised in the site are : POLICY MIX KEY QUESTIONS : here, the user is able to explore issues related to a number of key questions, each illustrated by examples derived from the Country Reviews and the Case Studies. POLICY MIX THEMES : another entry point is through POLICY MIX THEMES, each of which is of great relevance to an understanding of how policy mixes influence R&D investment levels. The main issues are summarised under each theme and links are provided to more detailed analyses and relevant empirical material. POLICY MIX REPORTS : from here, the user gets direct access to the full set of reports produced during the project. 44

49 General EU 27 Countries Other Countries Horizontal Analysis National Regional Sectoral Policy Mix Study Reports Available on the Web Site Policy Mix Methodological Report (July 2006) Definition of policy mixes and analytical framework for policy mix reviews and analyses Policy Mix Country Reviews (March 2007) Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom Canada, Japan, South Korea, USA Horizontal Analysis of Country Reviews Policy Mix Case Studies (December 2007) Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Poland, Netherlands, Romania, South Korea, Sweden, United Kingdom, USA Baden-Württemberg (DE), Castilla y Leon (ES), Flanders (BE), Friuli Venezia Giulia (IT), North-Brabant (NL), North West England (UK), Rhône-Alpes (FR), Saxony (DE), Vienna (AT), Wielkopolska (PL) Biotechnology in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Oresund ICT/electronics in Belgium, France, Hungary, the Netherlands Nanotechnology in the USA Service sector in the United Kingdom Annex: The Policy Mix Study and Web Site Policy Mix Thematic Reports (March 2008) Themes Theme 1 - Governance Theme 2 - Routes Theme 3 - R&D/R&D Policy Interactions Theme 4 - R&D/Non R&D Policy Interactions Theme 5 - Industrial Restructuring/Sector Specific Policy Drivers Theme 6 - Mini-mixes Policy Mix Final Reports (March 2009) Policy Mixes for R&D in Europe (the present Final Report) Guidance to the R&D Policy Mix Web Site Designing Policy Mixes: Enhancing Innovation System Performance and R&D Investment Levels 45

50

51 The Policy Mix Research Team Coordinator : Partners : UNU-MERIT, the Maastricht Economic and social Research and Training centre on Innovation and Technology, the University of Maastricht and the United Nations University (The Netherlands). INTRASOFT International (Luxembourg) Joanneum Research (Austria) PREST/ The Manchester Institute of Innovation Research University of Manchester (United Kingdom) Technopolis (The Netherlands) Wise Guys Ltd. (United Kingdom) ZEW the Centre for European Economic Research (Germany)

52 Increasing quantity and performance of research investments is a goal pursued by most governments in Europe and elsewhere. Which portfolios of instruments and policies are most effective to this aim? This report helps policymakers confronted with this question, by providing a framework, lessons from policy experiences, and policy tips and hints on how to create and implement an efficient policy mix for R&D. The novelty of the policy mix concept is that it relies on the idea that it is the combination of policy instruments interacting among each other, which influences R&D, rather than instruments taken in isolation. The other key idea is that R&D is not only influenced by policies from that policy sphere (such as direct funding or fiscal incentives, etc.) but that R&D is also influenced by policies from other domains, such as, for example, environmental regulations. The Policy Mix Web Site :

RIS3 from Strategic Orientations towards Policy Implementation: The Challenges Claire NAUWELAERS Independent expert in STI policy

RIS3 from Strategic Orientations towards Policy Implementation: The Challenges Claire NAUWELAERS Independent expert in STI policy S3 Platform Peer Review Workshop 15-16 May 2014, Portoroz RIS3 from Strategic Orientations towards Implementation: The Challenges Claire NAUWELAERS Independent expert in STI policy 1 KEY Challenges RIS3

More information

FINLAND. The use of different types of policy instruments; and/or Attention or support given to particular S&T policy areas.

FINLAND. 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 information

demonstrator approach real market conditions would be useful to provide a unified partner search instrument for the CIP programme

demonstrator 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 information

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 9 December 2008 (16.12) (OR. fr) 16767/08 RECH 410 COMPET 550

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 9 December 2008 (16.12) (OR. fr) 16767/08 RECH 410 COMPET 550 COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 9 December 2008 (16.12) (OR. fr) 16767/08 RECH 410 COMPET 550 OUTCOME OF PROCEEDINGS of: Competitiveness Council on 1 and 2 December 2008 No. prev. doc. 16012/08

More information

Learning Lessons Abroad on Funding Research and Innovation. 29 April 2016

Learning Lessons Abroad on Funding Research and Innovation. 29 April 2016 Learning Lessons Abroad on Funding Research and Innovation 29 April 2016 In South Africa universities contribute 2.1% of gross domestic product more than textiles and forestry and they employ 300,000 people

More information

Terms of Reference. Call for Experts in the field of Foresight and ICT

Terms of Reference. Call for Experts in the field of Foresight and ICT Terms of Reference Call for Experts in the field of Foresight and ICT Title Work package Lead: Related Workpackage: Related Task: Author(s): Project Number Instrument: Call for Experts in the field of

More information

Innovation support instruments a policy mix approach

Innovation 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 information

OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2008: Highlights

OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2008: Highlights OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2008: Highlights Global dynamics in science, technology and innovation Investment in science, technology and innovation has benefited from strong economic

More information

The main recommendations for the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) reflect the position paper of the Austrian Council

The main recommendations for the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) reflect the position paper of the Austrian Council Austrian Council Green Paper From Challenges to Opportunities: Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation funding COM (2011)48 May 2011 Information about the respondent: The Austrian

More information

WG/STAIR. Knut Blind, STAIR Chairman

WG/STAIR. Knut Blind, STAIR Chairman WG/STAIR Title: Source: The Operationalisation of the Integrated Approach: Submission of STAIR to the Consultation of the Green Paper From Challenges to Opportunities: Towards a Common Strategic Framework

More information

The 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 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 information

Working together to deliver on Europe 2020

Working together to deliver on Europe 2020 Lithuanian Position Paper on the Green Paper From Challenges to Opportunities: Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding Lithuania considers Common Strategic Framework

More information

Main lessons learned from the German national innovation system

Main lessons learned from the German national innovation system Main lessons learned from the German national innovation system May 2016 Introduction Germany has one of the most powerful national innovation systems in the world. On the 2015 Global Innovation Index,

More information

OECD s Innovation Strategy: Key Findings and Policy Messages

OECD s Innovation Strategy: Key Findings and Policy Messages OECD s Innovation Strategy: Key Findings and Policy Messages 2010 MIT Europe Conference, Brussels, 12 October Dirk Pilat, OECD dirk.pilat@oecd.org Outline 1. Why innovation matters today 2. Why policies

More information

Innovation in Europe: Where s it going? How does it happen? Stephen Roper Aston Business School, Birmingham, UK

Innovation in Europe: Where s it going? How does it happen? Stephen Roper Aston Business School, Birmingham, UK Innovation in Europe: Where s it going? How does it happen? Stephen Roper Aston Business School, Birmingham, UK Email: s.roper@aston.ac.uk Overview Innovation in Europe: Where is it going? The challenge

More information

Building an enterprise-centred innovation system

Building an enterprise-centred innovation system Building an enterprise-centred innovation system Ken Warwick Chair, OECD CIIE Deputy Chief Economic Adviser UK Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Themes Enterprise and innovation

More information

NOTE Strategic Forum for International S&T Cooperation (SFIC) opinion on the ERA Framework (input to the ERAC opinion on the ERA Framework)

NOTE Strategic Forum for International S&T Cooperation (SFIC) opinion on the ERA Framework (input to the ERAC opinion on the ERA Framework) EUROPEAN UNION EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA COMMITTEE Strategic Forum for International S&T Cooperation Secretariat Brussels, 21 November 2011 ERAC-SFIC 1356/11 NOTE Subject: Strategic Forum for International

More information

TRANSFORMATION INTO A KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMY: THE MALAYSIAN EXPERIENCE

TRANSFORMATION INTO A KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMY: THE MALAYSIAN EXPERIENCE TRANSFORMATION INTO A KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMY: THE MALAYSIAN EXPERIENCE by Honourable Dato Sri Dr. Jamaludin Mohd Jarjis Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation of Malaysia Going Global: The Challenges

More information

Please send your responses by to: This consultation closes on Friday, 8 April 2016.

Please 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 information

Finnish STI Policy

Finnish STI Policy Finnish STI Policy 2011 2015 2015 INNOVATION BRIDGES Nordic Slovak Innovation Forum October 26, Bratislava Ilkka Turunen Secretary General Research and Innovation Council of Finland Finland is one of the

More information

OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2010 Highlights

OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2010 Highlights OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 21 OECD 21 OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 21 Highlights Innovation can play an important role in the economic recovery Science, technology and

More information

Economic and Social Council

Economic 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 information

Horizon 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 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 information

Consultancy on Technological Foresight

Consultancy on Technological Foresight Consultancy on Technological Foresight A Product of the Technical Cooperation Agreement Strategic Roadmap for Productive Development in Trinidad and Tobago Policy Links, IfM Education and Consultancy Services

More information

Burgundy : Towards a RIS3

Burgundy : Towards a RIS3 Burgundy : Towards a RIS3 Baiona (Vigo), Galicia 6 th November 2014 Anne FAUCHER & Nicolas BERTHAUT Burgundy Regional Council Questions you would like peers to discuss Main achievements so far : - Five

More information

Globalisation increasingly affects how companies in OECD countries

Globalisation increasingly affects how companies in OECD countries ISBN 978-92-64-04767-9 Open Innovation in Global Networks OECD 2008 Executive Summary Globalisation increasingly affects how companies in OECD countries operate, compete and innovate, both at home and

More information

8365/18 CF/nj 1 DG G 3 C

8365/18 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 information

Strengthening the knowledge base and reducing fragmentation

Strengthening the knowledge base and reducing fragmentation Strengthening the knowledge base and reducing fragmentation I3U FINAL CONFERENCE Brussels, 25 September 2018 This project is co-funded by the European Union Research objectives Main objective: to evaluate

More information

Meeting report. High Level Group on the Competitiveness of the European Chemicals Industry

Meeting report. High Level Group on the Competitiveness of the European Chemicals Industry Meeting report High Level Group on the Competitiveness of the European Chemicals Industry Tuesday 18 December 2007 Main topics: Research, Innovation and Human Resources 1. Introduction The second meeting

More information

Making public support for innovation in the EU more e ective

Making public support for innovation in the EU more e ective PRO I NNO Eu r o p e Pap er n 1 3 Making public support for innovation in the EU more e ective European Commission Enterprise and Industry 1 The policy framework for innovation support The concept of innovation

More information

Framework conditions, innovation policies and instruments: Lessons Learned

Framework 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 information

Minister-President of the Flemish Government and Flemish Minister for Economy, Foreign Policy, Agriculture and Rural Policy

Minister-President of the Flemish Government and Flemish Minister for Economy, Foreign Policy, Agriculture and Rural Policy Policy Paper 2009-2014 ECONOMY The open entrepreneur Kris Peeters Minister-President of the Flemish Government and Flemish Minister for Economy, Foreign Policy, Agriculture and Rural Policy Design: Department

More information

National and Regional policies for Globalisation and Open Innovation: Synthesis of national correspondents questionnaire replies

National and Regional policies for Globalisation and Open Innovation: Synthesis of national correspondents questionnaire replies National and Regional policies for Globalisation and Open : Synthesis of national correspondents questionnaire replies University of Globalisation and Open Introduction Method: Survey (short questionnaire)

More information

Key features in innovation policycomparison. Dr Gudrun Rumpf Kyiv, 9 November, 2010

Key features in innovation policycomparison. Dr Gudrun Rumpf Kyiv, 9 November, 2010 Enhance Innovation Strategies, Policies and Regulation in Ukraine EuropeAid/127694/C/SER/UA Ukraine This Project is funded by the European Union Key features in innovation policycomparison EU and Ukraine

More information

EVCA Strategic Priorities

EVCA Strategic Priorities EVCA Strategic Priorities EVCA Strategic Priorities The following document identifies the strategic priorities for the European Private Equity and Venture Capital Association (EVCA) over the next three

More information

Horizon Work Programme Leadership in enabling and industrial technologies - Introduction

Horizon 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 information

Position Paper on the Common Strategic Framework. VINNOVA Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems

Position Paper on the Common Strategic Framework. VINNOVA Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems Position Paper on the Common Strategic Framework VINNOVA Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems 5 May 2011 Executive summary The Green Paper proposes a Common Strategic Framework (CSF) for

More information

MILAN DECLARATION Joining Forces for Investment in the Future of Europe

MILAN 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 information

Using foresight techniques in the implementation of innovation policies

Using foresight techniques in the implementation of innovation policies Using foresight techniques in the implementation of innovation policies Yiannis Bakouros Assοciate Professor Management of Technology Research Lab.(MATER) University of Western Macedonia The regional dimension

More information

Annual Report 2010 COS T SME. over v i e w

Annual Report 2010 COS T SME. over v i e w Annual Report 2010 COS T SME over v i e w 1 Overview COST & SMEs This document aims to provide an overview of SME involvement in COST, and COST s vision for increasing SME participation in COST Actions.

More information

Dynamics of National Systems of Innovation in Developing Countries and Transition Economies. Jean-Luc Bernard UNIDO Representative in Iran

Dynamics of National Systems of Innovation in Developing Countries and Transition Economies. Jean-Luc Bernard UNIDO Representative in Iran Dynamics of National Systems of Innovation in Developing Countries and Transition Economies Jean-Luc Bernard UNIDO Representative in Iran NSI Definition Innovation can be defined as. the network of institutions

More information

Draft executive summaries to target groups on industrial energy efficiency and material substitution in carbonintensive

Draft executive summaries to target groups on industrial energy efficiency and material substitution in carbonintensive Technology Executive Committee 29 August 2017 Fifteenth meeting Bonn, Germany, 12 15 September 2017 Draft executive summaries to target groups on industrial energy efficiency and material substitution

More information

Towards a systemic approach to unlock the transformative power of service innovation

Towards a systemic approach to unlock the transformative power of service innovation Enterprise and Industry Carsten Schierenbeck Clusters and Support for SMEs Towards a systemic approach to unlock the transformative power of service innovation Final conference of the Project R&D and Innovation

More information

WORKSHOP 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 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 information

Technology Platforms: champions to leverage knowledge for growth

Technology Platforms: champions to leverage knowledge for growth SPEECH/04/543 Janez POTOČNIK European Commissioner for Science and Research Technology Platforms: champions to leverage knowledge for growth Seminar of Industrial Leaders of Technology Platforms Brussels,

More information

The Intellectual Property, Knowledge Transfer: Perspectives

The Intellectual Property, Knowledge Transfer: Perspectives 1 The Intellectual Property, Knowledge Transfer: Perspectives Salvatore Amico Roxas Intellectual Property & Technology Transfer Unit European Commission - Joint Research Centre Salvatore.amico-roxas@ec.europa.eu

More information

Copernicus Evolution: Fostering Growth in the EO Downstream Services Sector

Copernicus 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 information

DRAFT TEXT on. Version 2 of 9 September 13:00 hrs

DRAFT 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 information

POSITION PAPER. GREEN PAPER From Challenges to Opportunities: Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation funding

POSITION PAPER. GREEN PAPER From Challenges to Opportunities: Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation funding POSITION PAPER GREEN PAPER From Challenges to Opportunities: Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation funding Preamble CNR- National Research Council of Italy shares the vision

More information

Written response to the public consultation on the European Commission Green Paper: From

Written 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 information

A SYSTEMIC APPROACH TO KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY FORESIGHT. THE ROMANIAN CASE

A 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 information

Strategic Policy Forum: A Roadmap for Digital Entrepreneurship

Strategic Policy Forum: A Roadmap for Digital Entrepreneurship Member State Board on Digital Entrepreneurship Strategic Policy Forum: A Roadmap for Digital Entrepreneurship 2 nd meeting of the Member State Board Brussels, 26 September 2014 John Higgins President,

More information

No. prev. doc.: 9108/10 RECH 148 SOC 296 Subject: Social Dimension of the European Research Area - Adoption of Council conclusions

No. prev. doc.: 9108/10 RECH 148 SOC 296 Subject: Social Dimension of the European Research Area - Adoption of Council conclusions COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 7 May 2010 9450/10 RECH 172 SOC 320 REPORT from: Permanent Representatives Committee to: Council No. prev. doc.: 9108/10 RECH 148 SOC 296 Subject: Social Dimension

More information

15890/14 MVG/cb 1 DG G 3 C

15890/14 MVG/cb 1 DG G 3 C Council of the European Union Brussels, 4 December 2014 (OR. en) 15890/14 OUTCOME OF PROCEEDINGS From: To: No. prev. doc.: Subject: Council Delegations IND 354 COMPET 640 MI 930 RECH 452 ECOFIN 1069 ENV

More information

7656/18 CF/MI/nj 1 DG G 3 C

7656/18 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 information

Initial draft of the technology framework. Contents. Informal document by the Chair

Initial 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 information

Research DG. European Commission. Sharing Visions. Towards a European Area for Foresight

Research DG. European Commission. Sharing Visions. Towards a European Area for Foresight Sharing Visions Towards a European Area for Foresight Sharing Visions Towards a European Area for Foresight Europe s knowledge base : key challenges The move towards a European Research Area (ERA) ERA

More information

WhyisForesight Important for Europe?

WhyisForesight Important for Europe? Tokyo, 3rd International Conference on Foresight WhyisForesight Important for Europe? Jean-Michel BAER Director, Science, Economy and Society DG Research, European Commission, Brussels -1- The Challenge

More information

Report on the European Commission's Public On-line Consultation. "Shaping the ICT research and innovation agenda for the next decade"

Report on the European Commission's Public On-line Consultation. Shaping the ICT research and innovation agenda for the next decade Report on the European Commission's Public On-line Consultation "Shaping the ICT research and innovation agenda for the next decade" Open 4 September - 7 November 008 Executive Summary In search of the

More information

10246/10 EV/ek 1 DG C II

10246/10 EV/ek 1 DG C II COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 28 May 2010 10246/10 RECH 203 COMPET 177 OUTCOME OF PROCEEDINGS from: General Secretariat of the Council to: Delegations No. prev. doc.: 9451/10 RECH 173 COMPET

More information

Priority setting for S&T : addressing the complexities of a simple notion A case studies approach

Priority setting for S&T : addressing the complexities of a simple notion A case studies approach OECD-DSTI Enhancing research performance through evaluation and priority setting Workshop Paris, 15-16 September 2008 Assessing priority setting exercises : lessons and good practices Priority setting

More information

Member State Programme Objec ve Focus Priori es Method Funding Source

Member State Programme Objec ve Focus Priori es Method Funding Source Member State Programme Objec ve Focus Priori es Method Funding Source Austria Belgium Denmark France France Produktion der Zukunft (Production of the Future) MADE DIFFERENT Factories of the future Academy

More information

Consultation on Long Term sustainability of Research Infrastructures

Consultation on Long Term sustainability of Research Infrastructures Consultation on Long Term sustainability of Research Infrastructures Fields marked with are mandatory. 1. Introduction The political guidelines[1] of the European Commission present an ambitious agenda

More information

Seoul Initiative on the 4 th Industrial Revolution

Seoul Initiative on the 4 th Industrial Revolution ASEM EMM Seoul, Korea, 21-22 Sep. 2017 Seoul Initiative on the 4 th Industrial Revolution Presented by Korea 1. Background The global economy faces unprecedented changes with the advent of disruptive technologies

More information

OECD Innovation Strategy: Key Findings

OECD 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 information

BASED ECONOMIES. Nicholas S. Vonortas

BASED 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 information

A Science & Innovation Audit for the West Midlands

A 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 information

STI OUTLOOK 2002 COUNTRY RESPONSE TO POLICY QUESTIONNAIRE CZECH REPUBLIC. 1. General framework and trends in science, technology and industry policy

STI OUTLOOK 2002 COUNTRY RESPONSE TO POLICY QUESTIONNAIRE CZECH REPUBLIC. 1. General framework and trends in science, technology and industry policy STI OUTLOOK 2002 COUNTRY RESPONSE TO POLICY QUESTIONNAIRE CZECH REPUBLIC 1. General framework and trends in science, technology and industry policy 1.1 Overview and assessment of policies for science,

More information

Expert Group Meeting on

Expert 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 information

Interim Report on the Heiligendamm Process at the G8 Summit in Hokkaido Toyako 7 to 9 July 2008

Interim Report on the Heiligendamm Process at the G8 Summit in Hokkaido Toyako 7 to 9 July 2008 Interim Report on the Heiligendamm Process at the G8 Summit in Hokkaido Toyako 7 to 9 July 2008 Prepared by the Steering Committee of the Heiligendamm Process consisting of the personal representatives

More information

Conclusions on the future of information and communication technologies research, innovation and infrastructures

Conclusions 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 information

Whole of Society Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding

Whole of Society Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Whole of Society Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding WOSCAP (Whole of Society Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding) is a project aimed at enhancing the capabilities of the EU to implement conflict prevention

More information

BSSSC Annual Conference Resolution 2016

BSSSC Annual Conference Resolution 2016 BSSSC Annual 2016 The Baltic Sea States Subregional Co-operation (BSSSC) is a political network for decentralised authorities (subregions) in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR). BSSSC has now gathered for the

More information

Foresight programmes in Europe: links to policymaking

Foresight programmes in Europe: links to policymaking Foresight programmes in Europe: links to policymaking processes Attila Havas Institute of Economics Hungarian Academy of Sciences The 3rd International Conference on Foresight, NISTEP Tokyo, 19-20 November,

More information

Observing Science, Technology and Innovation Studies in Russia HSE ISSEK Surveys

Observing Science, Technology and Innovation Studies in Russia HSE ISSEK Surveys Observing Science, Technology and Innovation Studies in Russia HSE ISSEK Surveys Galina Gracheva Konstantin Fursov Vitaliy Roud Linkages between Actors in the Innovation System Extended Workshop Moscow,

More information

Programme. Social Economy. in Västra Götaland Adopted on 19 June 2012 by the regional board, Region Västra Götaland

Programme. 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 information

National 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 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 information

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT. Accompanying the

COMMISSION 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 information

VSNU December Broadening EU s horizons. Position paper FP9

VSNU 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 information

Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Frequently Asked Questions

Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Frequently Asked Questions EUROPEAN COMMISSION MEMO Brussels/Strasbourg, 1 July 2014 Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Frequently Asked Questions See also IP/14/760 I. EU Action Plan on enforcement of Intellectual Property

More information

Digital Transformation Monitor - national initiatives on digitisation of industry

Digital Transformation Monitor - national initiatives on digitisation of industry Digital Transformation Monitor - national initiatives on digitisation of industry Michael Berz Policy Officer for Digital Transformation KETs, Digital Manufacturing & Interoperability Unit DG GROW Working

More information

The actors in the research system are led by the following principles:

The actors in the research system are led by the following principles: Innovation by Co-operation Measures for Effective Utilisation of the Research Potential in the Academic and Private Sectors Position Paper by Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie Bundesvereinigung der

More information

NEW ZEALAND. Evaluation of the Public Good Science Fund An Overview.

NEW ZEALAND. Evaluation of the Public Good Science Fund An Overview. NEW ZEALAND 1. General Policy Framework Key policy documents include: Blueprint for Change + Following the Blueprint. RS&T 2010. Building Tomorrow s Success. Setting Criteria for Government Investment.

More information

Conclusions concerning various issues related to the development of the European Research Area

Conclusions 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 information

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 9.9.2009 SEC(2009)1197 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Making public support for innovation in the EU more effective: Lessons learned from a public

More information

TENTATIVE REFLECTIONS ON A FRAMEWORK FOR STI POLICY ROADMAPS FOR THE SDGS

TENTATIVE 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 information

Infrastructure services for private sector development (P) Project

Infrastructure services for private sector development (P) Project Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Updated Project Information Document () Report No: 30298 Project Name CROATIA - Croatia

More information

ClusterNanoRoad

ClusterNanoRoad ClusterNanoRoad 723630 Expert Advisory Board Meeting Brussels April 11th, 2018 WP1 ClusterNanoRoad (723630) VALUE CHAIN OPPORTUNITIES: mapping and benchmarking of Cluster-NMBP RIS3 good practices [M1-M7]

More information

INNOVATION PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF ARMENIA Chapter 2: National Innovation System and Innovation Governance

INNOVATION PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF ARMENIA Chapter 2: National Innovation System and Innovation Governance INNOVATION PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF ARMENIA Chapter 2: National Innovation System and Innovation Governance Presentation by Rumen Dobrinsky European Alliance for Innovation Eighth session of the UNECE Committee

More information

GreenEcoNet Annual Conference

GreenEcoNet Annual Conference GreenEcoNet Annual Conference Growing a sustainable EU economy through SMEs: Boosting jobs, growth and entrepreneurship Brussels, 27 May 2015 Venue: CEPS, Place du Congrès 1, 1000 Brussels Job creation

More information

GROUP OF SENIOR OFFICIALS ON GLOBAL RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURES

GROUP OF SENIOR OFFICIALS ON GLOBAL RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURES GROUP OF SENIOR OFFICIALS ON GLOBAL RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURES GSO Framework Presented to the G7 Science Ministers Meeting Turin, 27-28 September 2017 22 ACTIVITIES - GSO FRAMEWORK GSO FRAMEWORK T he GSO

More information

MEASURES TO SUPPORT SMEs IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

MEASURES TO SUPPORT SMEs IN THE EUROPEAN UNION STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS BABEŞ-BOLYAI, NEGOTIA, LV, 1, 2010 MEASURES TO SUPPORT SMEs IN THE EUROPEAN UNION VALENTINA DIANA IGNĂTESCU 1 ABSTRACT. This paper aims to identify and analyze the principal measures

More information

An Innovative Public Private Approach for a Technology Facilitation Mechanism (TFM)

An Innovative Public Private Approach for a Technology Facilitation Mechanism (TFM) Summary An Innovative Public Private Approach for a Technology Facilitation Mechanism (TFM) July 31, 2012 In response to paragraph 265 276 of the Rio+20 Outcome Document, this paper outlines an innovative

More information

Engaging UK Climate Service Providers a series of workshops in November 2014

Engaging 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 information

Research strategy LUND UNIVERSITY

Research strategy LUND UNIVERSITY Research strategy 2017 2021 LUND UNIVERSITY 2 RESEARCH STRATEGY 2017 2021 Foreword 2017 is the first year of Lund University s 10-year strategic plan. Research currently constitutes the majority of the

More information

Policy Partnership on Science, Technology and Innovation Strategic Plan ( ) (Endorsed)

Policy Partnership on Science, Technology and Innovation Strategic Plan ( ) (Endorsed) 2015/PPSTI2/004 Agenda Item: 9 Policy Partnership on Science, Technology and Innovation Strategic Plan (2016-2025) (Endorsed) Purpose: Consideration Submitted by: Chair 6 th Policy Partnership on Science,

More information

Fourth Annual Multi-Stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals

Fourth Annual Multi-Stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals Fourth Annual Multi-Stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals United Nations Headquarters, New York 14 and 15 May 2019 DRAFT Concept Note for the STI

More information

CRC Association Conference

CRC Association Conference CRC Association Conference Brisbane, 17 19 May 2011 Productivity and Growth: The Role and Features of an Effective Innovation Policy Jonathan Coppel Economic Counsellor to OECD Secretary General 1 Outline

More information

Colombia s Social Innovation Policy 1 July 15 th -2014

Colombia s Social Innovation Policy 1 July 15 th -2014 Colombia s Social Innovation Policy 1 July 15 th -2014 I. Introduction: The background of Social Innovation Policy Traditionally innovation policy has been understood within a framework of defining tools

More information

Introduction to HSE ISSEK

Introduction to HSE ISSEK Introduction to HSE ISSEK Leonid Gokhberg First Vice-Rector, HSE Director, HSE ISSEK Linkages between Actors in the Innovation System Extended Workshop Moscow, 13 June 2012 HSE: Key Facts and Figures Campuses:

More information