Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010

648

Published on

Published in: Technology, Economy & Finance
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
648
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Priority Setting in STI Policy in Historical Perspective <ul><li>Wolfgang Polt </li></ul><ul><li>Joanneum Research </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>OECD-TIP Policy Roundtable on STI Governance </li></ul><ul><li>Vienna 18.02.2010 </li></ul>
  • 2. <ul><li>Background </li></ul><ul><li>Studies on Priority Setting in STI Policy </li></ul><ul><li>Polt, W., Gassler, H., Schindler, J., Weber, M. Mahroum, S. Kubeczko, K., Keenan, M. (2004): Priorities in Science and Technology Policy – An International Comparison . Project Report. </li></ul><ul><li>Gassler, H., Polt, W., Rammer, C. (2006): Priority setting in research and technology policy – an analysis of paradigm changes in the post-war period [in German], in: Austrian Journal for Political Sciences [ÖZPW] 1/2006, pp 7-23 </li></ul><ul><li>Gassler, H., Polt, W., Rammer, C. (2008): Priority setting in technology policy – historical developments and recent trends . In: Nauwelaeres, C., Wintjens, R. (Eds.): Innovation Policy in Europe. Measurement and Strategy. Edward Elgar Publishers, pp 203-224 </li></ul>
  • 3. <ul><li>Concepts &amp; Definitions </li></ul><ul><li>Priority setting (in STI policy) : conscious and deliberate selection of certain activities, actors, policies or policy instruments at the expense of others with an impact on resource allocation . </li></ul><ul><li>Thematic (addressing specific fields of S&amp;T, societal goals and missions, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Functional / Generic (addressing generic aspects of the Innovation System, e.g. establishment of new firms, collaboration between industry and science etc.) </li></ul>
  • 4. <ul><li>Historical Paradigms in Priority Setting </li></ul>Source: Gassler, Polt, Rammer (2008)
  • 5. Technology Policy Paradigm: ‘Old’ Mission-Oriented Approach <ul><li>Top down definition of thematic priorities </li></ul><ul><li>Establishing of specialised public R&amp;D organisations </li></ul>Institutional Dimension / Actors <ul><li>Production of ‘public’ or ‘meritoric’ goods </li></ul>Legitimization/Rationale <ul><li>Emphasis on ‘large-scale’ technologies (i.e. defence, energy, transport etc.) </li></ul>Thematic dimension
  • 6. Technology Policy Paradigm: Industrial policy approach (key/strategic technologies) <ul><li>Emphasis on planning </li></ul><ul><li>Techn. forecasting/roadmapping </li></ul><ul><li>Technology assessment </li></ul><ul><li>National Technology Programs </li></ul>Institutional Dimension / Actors <ul><li>Fostering competitiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasis on static and dynamic economies of scale and specific market failures, esp.spillovers from ‘generic’ technologies </li></ul>Legitimization/Rationale <ul><li>In addition to ‘old strategic sectors’: ICT; Biotechnology; New Materials; Nanotechnology </li></ul>Thematic dimension
  • 7. Technology Policy Paradigm: Systemic approach <ul><li>Increasing number of actors involved in STI policy and priority setting </li></ul><ul><li>Agencies emerge as important players in STI policy </li></ul>Institutional Dimension / Actors <ul><li>“ Systemic failures” </li></ul>Legitimization/Rationale <ul><li>Emphasis on ‘functional’ aspects of the innovation system (cooperation; framework conditions, regulation etc.) </li></ul>Thematic dimension
  • 8. Technology Policy Paradigm: ‘New’ Mission-Oriented Approach <ul><li>Involvement of different societal groups and stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>horizontal coordination of hitherto separated policy areas </li></ul><ul><li>large number of actors </li></ul>Institutional Dimension / Actors <ul><li>Orientation towards societal needs and challenges </li></ul>Legitimization/Rationale <ul><li>Sustainable Development; </li></ul><ul><li>Climate Change, </li></ul><ul><li>Information &amp; Knowledge Society; </li></ul><ul><li>Demographic Change and Aging; </li></ul><ul><li>Health and new deseases </li></ul><ul><li>Safety and Security </li></ul><ul><li>Food supply </li></ul>Thematic dimension
  • 9. <ul><li>Dimensions of the PS process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Types of priorities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(i) thematic (ii) functional/generic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Actors and actor relations in priority setting role and position of different priority setting actors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nature of the priority setting process, e.g.: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>top-down/expert-based </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>vs. bottom-up/participatory </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>degree of formalization </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>mechanisms for implementation and evaluation) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  • 10. <ul><li>Actors in Priority Setting </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Multitude of actors (as a function of size, development and complexity of the innovation and policy systems) : </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Federal and regional governments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>International bodies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>S&amp;T policy councils &amp; advisory bodies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research councils and funding agencies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research performers (enterprises, PROs, universities, ...) </li></ul></ul>
  • 11. <ul><li>Means of Priority Setting </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Government White Papers /Strategies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Budget plans &amp; allocations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Thematic STI Programmes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Government Procurement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Institutional Profiling &amp; Specialisation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance Based Contracting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Clusters/Technology Platforms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Strategic Research Agendas </li></ul></ul>
  • 12. <ul><li>Mechanisms to Support Priority Setting </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology planning and forecasting , as well as ‚Constructive TA‘ (60s, 70s) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology Foresight and Roadmapping (80s, 90s) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Priority setting as an outcome of broader ‚Strategic Policy Intelligence‘ (Foresight, Monitoring, Evaluation, Assessment ...) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Trend towards „expertise-supported consultation mechanisms“ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Trend towards programmes (instead of institutions) as means of priority setting </li></ul></ul>
  • 13. <ul><li>Main Trends in Priority Setting </li></ul>Thanks for listening <ul><ul><li>Growing complexity with increasing number of actors: science/research councils, funding agencies, research actors (universities, public research labs) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Priority setting processes have become more decentralised – a larger number of actors have built up related capacities and been given related responsibilities </li></ul></ul>
  • 14. <ul><li>Main Trends in Priority Setting </li></ul>Thanks for listening <ul><ul><li>Explicit strategy formulation: more widespread in the 90s, tendency to make regular strategy formulation complusory (‚New Public Management‘) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Path-dependency in innovations systems limits the degrees of freedom for choices between priorities (dedicated / sector / technology specific institutions, departmental split of R&amp;D)  ‚implicit thematic priorities ‘ </li></ul></ul>
  • 15. <ul><li>Challenges for Priority Setting </li></ul>Thanks for listening <ul><ul><li>Establish a sound policy rationale </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Avoid institutional lock-in (e.g. in too narrowly specialised institutions) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Avoid too narrow top-down definition of thematic priorities (explicit or implicit) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus on broad societal missions instead </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus rather on ‚functional‘ priorities of the innovation system </li></ul></ul>
  • 16. <ul><li>Challenges for Priority Setting </li></ul>Thanks for listening <ul><ul><li>Use primarily instruments with fixed life-length as means to establish priorities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensure coherence of PS in an increasingly complex landscape of actors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Embed priority setting in a larger concept of STI policy strategy formulation , using all approaches of ‚strategic policy intelligence‘ (foresight, monitoring, evaluation, assessment, benchmarking..) </li></ul></ul>
  • 17. <ul><ul><li>Challenges for Priority Setting for Specfic Technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If too broard: almost non-discriminatory (e.g. ICT, Biotech, Nanotech, …) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If too narrow: risk of ‚capture‘ and information asymmetry (‚embedded systems in household appliances‘…) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Most of the concepts brought forward to guide thematic priority setting lack rigor and rationale </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Most) suitable rationales for priority setting: production of public goods  ‚public missions‘ </li></ul></ul>
  • 18. <ul><li>A Model for Co-Existence of Policy Rationales for Priority Setting </li></ul>General R&amp;D support for private industry ( e.g. tax credit for R&amp;D, bottom-up direct funding) Support for ‘functional’ priorities (collaboration, technology transfer, spin-offs etc) Support for selected technologies / fields (missions, public goods)
  • 19. <ul><li>Thank you for your attention ! </li></ul>
  • 20. <ul><li>Share of Public R&amp;D support in BERD (2004) </li></ul>Source: OECD-MSTI; National source; Estimates by ZEW
  • 21. <ul><li>Conceptual underpinning of technology-centered PS </li></ul><ul><li>Strategic </li></ul><ul><li>Critical </li></ul><ul><li>Key </li></ul><ul><li>Emerging </li></ul><ul><li>Pathbreaking </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructural </li></ul><ul><li>Generic </li></ul><ul><li>General Purpose </li></ul><ul><li>Disruptive </li></ul>„ ..most of these lists of technologies remain at a level which makes them only a poor guide for policy...“ Richard Branscomb (1994) Lists of Technologies

×