Innovation system research and policy: Where it came from and Where it might go

Transcription

1 Innovation system research and policy: Where it came from and Where it might go University of the Republic October Bengt-Åke Lundvall Aalborg University

2 Structure of the lecture 1. A brief history of innovation system research: 2. Why we need a broad definition of the innovation system. 3. Policy implications of a systemic and evolutionary perspective 4. The challenge posed by the globalising learning economy: On the role of the openness of national innovation system.

3 The Original NSI-concept Friedrich List (1840) as the Grandfather of the NSI-concept and Freeman (1982) as Father. List, Freeman, Nelson and Aalborg versions were broad and linked innovation to the production system and to the organisation of firms. The aim was to understand catching-up and international competitiveness. Gave rise to criticism to standard economics and to standard economic policy.

4 The message Critique: Of the drift away from critique and sustainability - toward primitive engineering approach. Of exclusive focus on science and neglect of experience based learning. Conclusion: Public policy as institutional design + creating and supporting winners. A need for entrepreneurial state that regulates the openness of the economy.

5 A brief history of innovation research the antecedents Adam Smith on the role of both experience-based and science based learning Friedrich List on the need for infrastructural investment to build national innovation systems Karl Marx on the dialectical impact of technical progress for workers and society. Schumpeter as the Marx of the bourgeosie.

6 Schumpeter on innovation Schumpeter was mainly interested in the implications for economic theory and to explain historical phenomena such as long waves less on how to design management and policy.. When explaining innovation he put most of the emphasis on the supply side first the individual entrepreneur and later the R&D-lab of the big company. This view was challenged by Schmookler who demonstrated that the growth of demand was a prerequisite for innovation.

7 Chris Freeman (and Richard Nelson) father(s) of modern innovation theory CF Economist from London School of Economics went to Keynes lectures in Cambridge, read Marx and Schumpeter. SPRU started with studying prerequisites for successful innovation (Sappho) but gradually Freeman, Perez, Soete, Dosi and others moved on toward the critical perspective.

8 The eighties a period of building innovation theory Technological paradigms (Dosi) International trade (Pavitt and Soete) Long waves (Perez and Freeman) Comparative sector and technology studies (SPRU and Nelson in the US). Historical work (Rosenberg and David) Innovation systems in small countries (Aalborg). The Dosi et al-book: Technical change and economic theory (1988)

9 Innovation as an interactive process and the innovation system perspective Among Freeman s favourite lecturing themes beginning of the 80 s were: The need to overcome the split between innovation as driven by supply factors versus innovation as driven by demand factors. The importance of understanding interaction between agents in the innovation process 1982 Freeman introduced the concept national system of innovation in an unpublished paper for an OECD-group.

10 The paradox and the built in STI-bias A similar weakness of much of the policy oriented innovation research!!! Reflects the limited perspective with to much focus on Science based learning (STI) to the neglect of Experience based learning (DUI). STI-learning can be measured and manipulated more easily than DUI-learning. Policies involved are less controversial and easier to design. Lamp-post syndrome!

11 STI-mode and DUI-mode of learning getting the NSI-concept back on track STI=Science-Technology-Innovation mode is characterised by science-approach formalisation, explicitation and codification DUI=Learning by Doing, Using and Interacting mode refers to experience-based, implicit, embedded and embodied knowledge. Jensen, Johnson, Lorenz and Lundvall, Forms of Knowledge and Modes of Innovation, Research Policy, 2007

12 Illustrating empirically how DUI and STI-learning promote innovation Year 2001, DISKO survey on technical and organisational change addressed to Danish firms in the private sector,. Survey and register data from 692 firms included in the following analysis. Jensen, Johnson, Lorenz and Lundvall in Research Policy 2007.

13 DUI-learning - indicators reflecting learning organisation and user focus The firm makes use of some of the following practises: Interdisciplinary workgroups Quality circles/groups Systems for collecting employee proposals from employees Autonomous groups Integration of functions Demarcations between groups of employees have become less sharp The firm has established closer relationships with customers

14 STI-learning indicators reflecting R&D-effort and networking with science The firm has positive expenditure on R&D. The firm has personnel with academic degree in natural science or engineering. The firm interacts with researchers attached to universities or other science institutes.

15 Odds ratio estimates (with control variables for sector, size & ownership) Odds ratio Coefficient estimate DUI/STI ** STI ** DUI **

16 Comment and interpretation of the table We use the cluster of firms that are weak both in terms of DUI experienced based learning and in terms of STI not engaged in R&D as Benchmark. The odds ratio indicates how much higher is the propability of innovation taking place. So the table shows that firms that are strong in organisational learning or in science based learning are twice as innovative as the benchmark category. Firms that combine strong versions of both modes of learning are five times as innovative as the firms in the benchmark cluster.

17 On the need to combine science-based with experience-based learning Firms combining science-based (STI-mode) with experience-based (DUI-mode) learning are more innovative than firms biased toward one mode. Calls for analytical efforts that establish the connection between knowledge creation through research and knowledge creation through organisational learning and inbteraction with users. Implies broad definitions of innovation systems, innovation policy and knowledge management.

18 Implications for how to define innovation systems In order to explain how new ideas are brought to the market and transformed into economic performance it is necessary to take into account both science-based learning and experience-based learning Human ressources and organisation within and across firms are important dimensions of the innovation system. Triple Helix is a Sub-system within the NSI and presenting it as a substitute for NSI is misleading!

19 Freeman 1982 Freeman, C. (1982) Technological infrastructure and international competitiveness, Draft paper submitted to the OECD Ad hoc-group on Science, technology and competitiveness, August 1982, mimeo. Later published as Freeman, C. (2004), 'Technological infrastructure and international competitiveness', Industrial and Corporate Change, 13:

20 Freeman on Absolute Advantage Contribution to OECD expert group on Science, technology and competitiveness ( ) The group ended with a draft report presenting the concept structural competitiveness. Freeman makes distinction between comparative and absolute advantage (=strong structural competitiveness). And he asks what constitutes absolute advantage. He shows that the national innovation system is important this encompasses the technological infrastructure and linkage structure for absolute advantage.

21 Freeman and the historical method Freeman starts from the Leontiev paradox and refers to the literature linking trade to technology (Hufbauer, Vernon and others). Most of this literature is about how science and technology contribute to trade specialisation. Only Kaldor (1978) refers to the competitiveness of the whole economy. In the absence of data for less developed countries Freeman uses historical method. Showing how the change in world economic leadership reflected how nations succeeded in mastering new technologies.

22 Freeman on Friedrich List Friedrich List was concerned with how Germany could catch-up with England. He was critical to the free trade doctrine proposed by Adam Smith and he argued in favor of protecting infant industry Freeman s reading of List shows that his main argument was related to the possible negative impact of free trade upon the national innovation system. List sees competitiveness as rooted in knowledge or in what he refers to as mental capital.

23 List on the role of mental capital The present state of nations is the result of the accumulation of all discoveries, inventions, improvements, perfections and extertions of all generations which have lived before us; they form the mental capital of the present human race, and every separate nation is productive only in the proportion in which it has known how to appropriate these attainments of former generations, and to increase them by its own acquirements. (List 1841, p. 183).

24 Lesson from List National governments should regulate the openness of the economy in such a way that the national innovation system is strengthened and so that it enhances mental capital. In order to benefit from openness you need scientific capabilities, technological infrastructure and diffusion oriented extension system.

25 Catch-up in the work by Fagerberg Main result of econometric analysis is that the innovation system and the quality of governance matter while openness and western institutions do not. This is especially the case for the least developed countries. His work confirms the perspective that Freeman developed in his 1982-paper.

26 Future challenges: People, learning and systemic context More systematic research on how learning by doing, using and interacting takes place. Development of indicators and taxonomies. Deepening our understanding of how people learn differently in different national systems and how it affects patterns of innovation. But also to understand how increased openness of national innovations systems change the preconditions for learning at the national level.

27 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION