Presentation on Recent trends in STI policy to a workshop of the ICBSS

1. ICBSS Workshop „Innovation in the
Wider Black Sea Region“
New Mission-orientation in STI
Policy
Wolfgang Polt
Joanneum Research -
POLICIES – Centre for Economic and Innovation Research
wolfgang.polt@joanneum.at
Athens, 16-17 June 2011

2. General Orientations of STI Policy
 Thematic: addressing either
 specific fields of S&T,
 societal goals and missions
 Functional/Generic: addressing generic
aspects of the Innovation System, e.g.
establishment of new firms, collaboration
between industry and science etc.
irrespective of field of
science/technology or purpose
(see OECD 1991)

3. Historical Paradigms of STI Policy
Source: Gassler, Polt, Rammer (2008)

4. Technology Policy Paradigm:
‘Old’ Mission-Oriented Approach
Thematic dimension  Emphasis on ‘large-scale’
technologies (i.e.
defence, energy,
transport etc.)
Legitimization/Rationale  Production of ‘public’ or
‘meritoric’ goods
Institutional Dimension /  Top down definition of
Actors thematic priorities
 Establishing of
specialised public R&D
organisations (PROs)

5. Technology Policy Paradigm: Industrial policy
approach (key/strategic technologies)
Thematic  In addition to „old strategic sectors‟:
dimension ICT; Biotechnology; New Materials;
Nanotechnology
Legitimization/  Fostering competitiveness
Rationale  Emphasis on static and dynamic
economies of scale and specific
market failures, esp.spillovers from
„generic‟ technologies
Institutional  Emphasis on planning
Dimension /  Techn. forecasting/roadmapping
Actors  Technology assessment
 National Technology Programs

6. Technology Policy Paradigm: Systemic
approach
Thematic  Emphasis on „functional‟ aspects
dimension of the innovation system
(cooperation; framework
conditions, regulation etc.)
Legitimization/  “Systemic failures”: gaps in the
Rationale system, parts of the system not
linking together, conflicting
logics of actors,….
Institutional  Increasing number of actors
Dimension / involved in STI policy and
priority setting
Actors
 Agencies emerge as important
players in STI policy

7. Technology Policy Paradigm:
„New‟ Mission-Oriented Approach
Thematic  Sustainable Development;
dimension  Climate Change,
 Information & Knowledge Society;
 Demographic Change and Aging;
 Health and new deseases
 Safety and Security
 Food supply
Legitimization/  Orientation towards societal needs and
Rationale challenges
Institutional  Involvement of different societal groups
Dimension / and stakeholders
Actors  horizontal coordination of hitherto
separated policy areas
 large number of actors

8. Mission-oriented R&D spending
within the OECD
 Rough attribution: R&D spending classified by
“socioeconomic objective”:
 Defense, space, agriculture, health, energy,
industrial technology (categories based on
funding-agency missions) account for at least 50%,
and in most cases, >60%, of public R&D spending in
early 2000s for South Korea, USA, UK, France,
Canada, Japan, and Germany.
 Spending on “advancement of knowledge” arguably
the category most closely connected with the
“market failure” rationale, accounts for 25 - 30%
of public R&D budgets in these economies.
(Source: Mowery 2005)

9. Figure 1: Gov't R&D spending by "socioeconomic objective," 2003 - 2004
100.0
90.0
80.0
Shares of total gov't R&D spending
70.0
60.0
Industrial production and technology
50.0 Energy
Protection and improvement of human health
40.0 Agriculture production and technology
Exploration and exploitation of space
Defense
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
United Japan France Germany United Canada South
States Kingdom Korea
Country

10. Current Strands of (new) Mission-
oriented STI-policies
 OECD: Mission-orientation is a mayor part
of the OECD Innovation Strategy: e.g.
‚Green Growth„ Strategy„
 EU: Mission-orientation is a central angle
of the ‚Innovation Union„ approach and the
current ‚Joint Programming Initiatives„ to
address ‚Grand Challenges„

11. ‚Green Growth Strategies„ in OECD

12. ‚Green Growth Strategies„ as part of
the stimulus packages in OECD
(Source: OECD 2009)

13. Joint Programming Initiatives in the EU
 Objective: to tackle grand societal
challenges
 Rationale: leverage and coordinate national
activities and combine diverse resources
 Status:
 10 themes identified in bottom-up and
consensual manner
 Strategic Research Agendas: in the making
 Governance models: established
 Resource Commitment by Member States on the
basis of variable geometry – exact modes yet to
be decided

14. Status of Joint Programming Initiatives
(March 2011)
JPI Countries Pilot calls
Neurodegenerative Diseases 23 May 2011
1st Wave
Agriculture 19 June 2011
Cultural Heritage 15 -
Healthy Diet 21 2012
Urban Europe 13 Sept 2011
Climate Knowledge 16 -
Water 20 (2012)
2. Wave
More years, better lives 16 -
Microbial challenge 15 -
Oceans 17 -

15. (Preliminary) Conclusions on Mission-
oriented STI Policy
 Mission-oriented STI Policy always occupied a substantial
share of public R&D expenditures. Currently, it seems to
stage a come-back to the centre stage of policy attention
against the background of increasing global/grand societal
challenges
 On top of appropriately identifying „market failure‟ as a
rationale for policy intervention, „innovation systems‟ and
„policy mix / portfolio‟ thinking is needed !
 Caution is needed in applying “lessons” from one field of
mission R&D to others (e.g. defence  environment)
 „New‟ Mission-orientation more difficult to implement
 Coordination across fields, mission agencies, complementary
policies within a mission-agency area is essential but difficult
 Increasingly addressing „global challenges‟ asks forinternational
co-ordination of „mission-oriented‟ STI policy (e.g. takling
climate change, energy, deseases, …)

16. Thank you for your attention !

17. Appendices

18. (Ideal)Types of R&D Activities (‚Stokes-
Ruttan Space„)

19. (Co)Existing STI Policy Rationales
Support
for selected areas (societal
challenges, specific
technologies)
(missions, public goods)
Support for ‘functional’ priorities
(collaboration, technology transfer, spin-offs etc)
General R&D support
for private industry
( e.g. tax credit for R&D, bottom-up direct
funding)

20. Mission-oriented R&D expenditure JAPAN
From: Stenberg & Nagano 2009

21. Mission-oriented R&D expenditure JAPAN
From: Stenberg & Nagano 2009

22. Mission-oriented R&D expenditure JAPAN
From: Stenberg & Nagano 2009

25. Mission-oriented R&D expenditure USA

26. Share of Public R&D support in BERD (2004)
Technology programmes Other technology specific support
non technology specific project support R&D tax deductions
Defense R&D contracts
France
UK
USA
Germany
Japan
Finland
Source: OECD-MSTI; National source; Estimates by ZEW
0 3 6 9 12 15
* inkl. steuerlicher FuE-Förderung durch Bundesstaaten (Annahme für 2000: ca. 400 Mio. US-$) und

27. References
 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
 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
 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
 Soete & Arundel (1995)?
 Ergas (1987)
 Mowery (2005)
 Stenberg & Nagano (2009)