Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010

902 views

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
902
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
11
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010

  1. 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. 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. 3. <ul><li>Concepts & 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&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. 4. <ul><li>Historical Paradigms in Priority Setting </li></ul>Source: Gassler, Polt, Rammer (2008)
  5. 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&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. 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. 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. 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 & 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. 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. 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&T policy councils & 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. 11. <ul><li>Means of Priority Setting </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Government White Papers /Strategies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Budget plans & 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 & 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. 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. 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. 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&D)  ‚implicit thematic priorities ‘ </li></ul></ul>
  15. 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. 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. 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. 18. <ul><li>A Model for Co-Existence of Policy Rationales for Priority Setting </li></ul>General R&D support for private industry ( e.g. tax credit for R&D, bottom-up direct funding) Support for ‘functional’ priorities (collaboration, technology transfer, spin-offs etc) Support for selected technologies / fields (missions, public goods)
  19. 19. <ul><li>Thank you for your attention ! </li></ul>
  20. 20. <ul><li>Share of Public R&D support in BERD (2004) </li></ul>Source: OECD-MSTI; National source; Estimates by ZEW
  21. 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

×