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

Transcription

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

2 Introduction The issue : national level priority setting for public ST policy formulation Process of prioritization for allocation of resources in the context of a public policy: classical, simple notion, YET. Engage into a reflexive analysis in order to contribute to our understanding of the issue Striking : the issue comes at the forefront of the political agenda A political demand for explicit processes of national level priority setting (PS) of ST policy

3 Introduction Three parts : A. Framing the issue through the analysis of the French case B. Case studies UK, D, J - (7 points) C. Policy lessons The issue : national level priority setting for public ST policy formulation

4 A. Framing the issue the French case (1) Since 2004 : a shared diagnostic for evolution of the NIS From a vertical sectoral silo logic of dominating PROs (university research being annexes ) towards a functionally driven design The logic of the separation of the 3 interactive complementary functions of a NIS: 1 - orientation (government) 2 - programming (intermediate organisation, funding agencies) 3 - research (institutes, universities and their departments / units) This is the logic behind the 2006 Law on research, the 2007 Law on universities, Budgetary reform state modernisation

5 A. Framing the issue the French case (2) So far national ST policy : largely the ex-post presentation of the collection of sectoral PROs-defined policies and strategies A major implication of the reform: the need of an exante explicit national ST policy! Needed because : performance indicators in national budget, demand for political transparency and rationale, new players as programming actors (ANR), universities pulling out of the PROs. July 2008: launching of the definition of a National Strategy for Research and Innovation (NSRI) to be presented to the Council of Ministers in April 2009 and to be actualised every four years

6 From there, a benchmarking exercise has been undertaken A. Framing the issue the French case (3) A National Strategy for Research and Innovation (NSRI) is the orientation function framework document It calls immediately to the notions of: overall vision, pluri-annual perspective, systemic and European coherence, foresight, stakeholders participation AND priorities definition major challenges identification for optimizing public funding.. Here is the demand for priority setting : a demand for formulation of a national policy which makes political sense by highlighting societal challenges the nation addresses in view of making priorities in the budgetary processes

7 B Case studies (1) Questions: - what decision making processes for the elaboration of priorities? - how are they expressed? - how are they implemented? Benchmarking comparative analysis prepared by the Futuris think-tank linked to the National Association for Technical Research (ANRT) non-profit, with public & private members, acting also as projectträger for public-private PhD grants programme Working group in which I participated ; desk research plus in depth interviews results published in 2008 yearly Futuris Report (October) A few key-obervations

8 B Case studies (2) Point 1. Very different NIS but all have a national policy document dealing with priorities Common dilemmas for addressing the issue of priorities: - basic / oriented research research / innovation - bottom-up / top-down processes - stakeholders: researchers / research organisations / universities / industry (big-small), civil society - longer term vision annual budget - ministry of research ministry of industry other ministries - project core funding - articulation with regional authorities Issue: defining the equilibrium for each parameter

9 B Case studies (3) Point 2. Major dilemma: the respective weight of : - sectorial priorities: large societal challenges linked to research for policy making and key-technologies within an innovation policy - horizontal systemic issues (HR, infrastructures, clusters, universities evolution ): the health of the NIS Point 3. The priority setting process: Government, Parliament, a High Council, think-tanks & committees Each country has its own particular stage for the play and particular shape / costume for the characters Development of an interactive process leading to production of a pluri-annual orientation document and budgetary decisions Foresight, evaluation, hearings, national conferences, white papers.

10 B Case studies (4) Point 4. the documents produced UK : spending review plus white papers plus TSB D: technology strategy J : 3rd S&T Basic plan Items presented: NIS architecture, new policy instruments evolution of policy mix & coordinating mechanisms, highlight of horizontal issues, technology transfer, science society, regional clusters, infrastructures, European and international issues and sectoral priorities

11 B Case studies (5) Both Research and innovation; priorities addressing the total science budget; Clear-cut roles allowing for evaluation Managerial organisation, allowing for interactions and input from bottom-up Point 5. UK situation National S&T priorities: presented through the Spending Review process regarding the Science budget plus the Technology Strategy Board (TSB) budget; it expresses: - overall budgetary evolutions and institutional reforms - differential budgetary growth among Research Councils (RC) - six large national interdisciplinary societal programmes : RC coordination by RCUK - themes for the innovation platforms of the TSB

12 B Case studies (6) Only HTS has explicit, ex-ante sectoral priorities: 17 technologies identified, SWOT analysis and action plan Priorities implemented mostly through the programmes managed by the federal ministries Significant effort of inter-ministerial and interinstrumental coordination Important role of the Research Industry alliance (FWW) committee supervising and in charge of follow up high level industrialists and heads of public research organisation Point 6. German situation National S&T priorities : - Excellence initiative : for universities - Research and innovation Pact: for public non university research institutions - High Tech Strategy (HTS): innovation policy

13 B Case studies (7) Point 7. Japanese situation Council on S&T Policy (CSTP) is chaired by the Prime ministers and meets every month Prepares the Pluri-annual Basic Plan CSTP checks, for each ministerial research programme or initiative, its compatibility with the Basic Plan (SABC process) This plan has mostly transversal objectives, but also sectoral priorities, large ones Also a more society oriented White Paper Ministries are given a role similar to agencies, with which they work closely Policy orientation and coordination is made by CSTP Quite top-down

14 C Policy lessons (1) b) at sectoral level - giving special attention a few politically significant issues/sectors (challenges) - designing an integrated set of actions addressing them, giving an opportunity for better coordination, resources and follow up, We drew lessons for France, but applies more generally S&T priority setting at national level is basically : a) at general level - producing a rationale and a discourse about the national S&T policy, giving political visibility to S&T policy - highlighting actions for a better functioning NIS (universities and framework conditions for innovation policy ) - giving signals for longer term shifts in relative funding among broad sectors

15 C Policy lessons (2) Hence the need for in-depth benchmarking good challenge! This resulting from a complex political, institutional and analytic process It is a necessary exercise a crucial one in fact: - dynamics of the NIS in a democracy - building the social contract between science and society - mechanism through which countries can enter into coordinations and partnerships at policy level (ERA) It is a complex exercise: - its design both as a decision-making process and an implementation process- must be tuned to the particular characteristics of the NIS: it requires a deep understanding of the systemic properties and of the functioning of the NIS