IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v50y2021i9s0048733321000585.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The politics of research and innovation: Understanding instrument choices in complex governance environments – the case of France and Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Acciai, Claudia

Abstract

What governments desire to achieve, and how they want to accomplish their goals, represent the core of any policy design process. However, it is still unclear how partisan politics, in its combined effect with path-dependency forces, influence policy makers’ choices over alternative instrument mixes. Through a comparative analysis of Research and Innovation (R&I) instrument choices in countries characterized by different paradigmatic models of policy (Italy and France), the paper investigates how the politics of different cabinets influence the formulation of national R&I strategies and the extent to which these decisions are constrained by the legacy of previous choices. By capitalizing on a new proposed treatment of policy instruments, the paper contributes to the definition of the types of tools found in policy mixes, investigating how national R&I instrument mix variations develop. The results of the analysis indicate how the selection of R&I policy instruments does not closely follow traditional left versus right-wing political cleavages, and their evolution is generally influenced by a combination of different context-dependent dynamics. However, when partisan acceptance of consolidated R&I instrument mixes across cabinets is present, this triggers a consolidating effect on path-dependency forces.

Suggested Citation

  • Acciai, Claudia, 2021. "The politics of research and innovation: Understanding instrument choices in complex governance environments – the case of France and Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:50:y:2021:i:9:s0048733321000585
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104254
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733321000585
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104254?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rinaldo Evangelista, 2007. "Rilevanza e impatto delle politiche dell'innovazione in Italia. Prime indicazioni fornite dalle indagini CIS," ECONOMIA E POLITICA INDUSTRIALE, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2007(1), pages 103-124.
    2. Mafini Dosso, 2014. "Restructuring in France's innovation system: from the mission-oriented model to a systemic approach of innovation," LEM Papers Series 2014/05, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    3. Jakob Edler & Paul Cunningham & Abdullah Gök & Philip Shapira (ed.), 2016. "Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 16121.
    4. Wang, Quan-Jing & Feng, Gen-Fu & Chen, Yin E. & Wen, Jun & Chang, Chun-Ping, 2019. "The impacts of government ideology on innovation: What are the main implications?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1232-1247.
    5. Jakob Edler & Jan Fagerberg, 2017. "Innovation policy: what, why, and how," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(1), pages 2-23.
    6. Cantner, Uwe & Pyka, Andreas, 2001. "Classifying technology policy from an evolutionary perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 759-775, May.
    7. Björn Kauder & Niklas Potrafke, 2013. "Government Ideology and Tuition Fee Policy: Evidence from the German States," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 59(4), pages 628-649, December.
    8. Nuvolari, Alessandro & Vasta, Michelangelo, 2015. "The Ghost in the Attic? The Italian National Innovation System in Historical Perspective, 1861–2011," Enterprise & Society, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 270-290, June.
    9. Borrás, Susana & Edquist, Charles, 2013. "The choice of innovation policy instruments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(8), pages 1513-1522.
    10. Borras, Susana & Seabrooke, Leonard (ed.), 2015. "Sources of National Institutional Competitiveness: Sensemaking in Institutional Change," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199678747.
    11. Benjamin Cashore & Michael Howlett, 2007. "Punctuating Which Equilibrium? Understanding Thermostatic Policy Dynamics in Pacific Northwest Forestry," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(3), pages 532-551, July.
    12. Grant, J. Tobin & Kelly, Nathan J., 2008. "Legislative Productivity of the U.S. Congress, 1789–2004," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 303-323, July.
    13. Irene Bouwma & Bas Arts & Duncan Liefferink, 2017. "Cause, catalyst or conjunction? The influence of the Habitats Directive on policy instrument choice in Member States," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(6), pages 977-996, June.
    14. Chung, Chao-chen, 2013. "Government, policy-making and the development of innovation system: The cases of Taiwanese pharmaceutical biotechnology policies (2000–2008)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1053-1071.
    15. Andrew Jordan & Elah Matt, 2014. "Designing policies that intentionally stick: policy feedback in a changing climate," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 227-247, September.
    16. Daniel Neicu & Peter Teirlinck & Stijn Kelchtermans, 2016. "Dipping in the policy mix: Do R&D subsidies foster behavioral additionality effects of R&D tax credits?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 218-239, April.
    17. Giliberto Capano & Andrea Lippi, 2017. "How policy instruments are chosen: patterns of decision makers’ choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 269-293, June.
    18. Colin Elman & John Gerring & James Mahoney, 2016. "Case Study Research," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 45(3), pages 375-391, August.
    19. Bhattacharya, Utpal & Hsu, Po-Hsuan & Tian, Xuan & Xu, Yan, 2017. "What Affects Innovation More: Policy or Policy Uncertainty?," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(5), pages 1869-1901, October.
    20. Giliberto Capano & Michael Howlett, 2020. "The Knowns and Unknowns of Policy Instrument Analysis: Policy Tools and the Current Research Agenda on Policy Mixes," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440199, January.
    21. Jan Fagerberg, 2017. "Innovation Policy: Rationales, Lessons And Challenges," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 497-512, April.
    22. Charles Edquist, 2001. "Innovation Policy in the Systems of Innovation Approach: Some Basic Principles," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Manfred M. Fischer & Josef Fröhlich (ed.), Knowledge, Complexity and Innovation Systems, chapter 3, pages 46-57, Springer.
    23. Claire Nauwelaers & Rene Wintjes (ed.), 2008. "Innovation Policy in Europe," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4131.
    24. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee, 2014. "Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 57-71.
    25. Edquist , Charles, 2014. "Striving Towards a Holistic Innovation Policy in European Countries - But Linearity Still Prevails!," Papers in Innovation Studies 2014/22, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    26. Sepehr Ghazinoory & Maghsoud Amiri & Soroush Ghazinoori & Parisa Alizadeh, 2019. "Designing innovation policy mix: a multi-objective decision-making approach," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(4), pages 365-385, May.
    27. Michael Howlett, 2009. "Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(1), pages 73-89, February.
    28. Laranja, Manuel & Uyarra, Elvira & Flanagan, Kieron, 2008. "Policies for science, technology and innovation: Translating rationales into regional policies in a multi-level setting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 823-835, June.
    29. Sabatier, Paul A., 1986. "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: a Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 21-48, January.
    30. Michael Howlett & Jeremy Rayner, 2013. "Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy Portfolio Design," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(2), pages 170-182.
    31. Rogge, Karoline S. & Reichardt, Kristin, 2016. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1620-1635.
    32. Rainer Kattel & Mariana Mazzucato, 2018. "Mission-oriented innovation policy and dynamic capabilities in the public sector," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(5), pages 787-801.
    33. Liang Ma, 2017. "Political ideology, social capital, and government innovativeness: evidence from the US states," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 114-133, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Howoldt, David, 2024. "Characterising innovation policy mixes in innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    2. Sminia, Harry & Bohn, Stephan & Sydow, Jörg, 2024. "Path release among practices in the process of path constitution: How the MP3-path appeared in the field of recorded music," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(8).
    3. Shobande, Olatunji A. & Ogbeifun, Lawrence, 2023. "Pooling cross-sectional and time series data for estimating causality between technological innovation, affluence and carbon dynamics: A comparative evidence from developed and developing countries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    4. Radek Rinn & Vilém Jarský, 2022. "Analysis of Financial Support for Forestry in the Czech Republic from the Perspective of Forest Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-25, November.
    5. Liu, Yang & Zhang, Yuchen & Zhao, Xiaoli & Farnoosh, Arash & Ma, Ruoran, 2024. "Synergistic effect of environmental governance instruments embedded in social contexts: A case study of China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giliberto Capano & Michael Howlett, 2020. "The Knowns and Unknowns of Policy Instrument Analysis: Policy Tools and the Current Research Agenda on Policy Mixes," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440199, January.
    2. Caloffi, Annalisa & Freo, Marzia & Ghinoi, Stefano & Mariani, Marco & Rossi, Federica, 2022. "Assessing the effects of a deliberate policy mix: The case of technology and innovation advisory services and innovation vouchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    3. Dirk Meissner & Sandrine Kergroach, 2021. "Innovation policy mix: mapping and measurement," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 197-222, February.
    4. Grashof, Nils, 2021. "Putting the watering can away –Towards a targeted (problem-oriented) cluster policy framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    5. Verónica Robert & Gabriel Yoguel, 2022. "Exploration of trending concepts in innovation policy," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 259-292, July.
    6. Serhat Burmaoglu & Ozcan Saritas, 2019. "An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 823-847, March.
    7. Joanna Stryjek, 2021. "Counteracting the COVID-19 Crisis with Innovation Policy Tools: A Case Study of the EU’s Supranational Innovation Policy," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(3), pages 450-468.
    8. Grashof, Nils, 2020. "Putting the watering can away Towards a targeted (problem-oriented) cluster policy framework," Papers in Innovation Studies 2020/4, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    9. Naimeh Mohammadi & Hamid Mostofi & Hans-Liudger Dienel, 2023. "Policy Chain of Energy Transition from Economic and Innovative Perspectives: Conceptual Framework and Consistency Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-27, August.
    10. Howoldt, David, 2024. "Characterising innovation policy mixes in innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    11. Mavrot, Céline & Hadorn, Susanne & Sager, Fritz, 2019. "Mapping the mix: Linking instruments, settings and target groups in the study of policy mixes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    12. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    13. Leonard Prochaska & Daniel Schiller, 2021. "An evolutionary perspective on the emergence and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policy: the example of the change of the leitmotif from biotechnology to bioeconomy," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 141-249, April.
    14. Malhotra, Abhishek, 2022. "Trade-offs and synergies in power sector policy mixes: The case of Uttar Pradesh, India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    15. Jonathan Craft & Reut Marciano, 2024. "Low-fidelity policy design, within-design feedback, and the Universal Credit case," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(1), pages 83-99, March.
    16. Janssen, Matthijs & Wanzenböck, Iris & Fünfschilling, Lea & Pontinakis, Dimitris, 2023. "Governance arrangements for the implementation of transformative innovation policy: Insights from a comparative case study," Papers in Innovation Studies 2023/13, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    17. Jan Fagerberg & Håkon Endresen Normann, 2022. "Innovation policy, regulation and the transition to net zero," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20220531, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    18. Marijn T. Geet & Stefan Verweij & Tim Busscher & Jos Arts, 2021. "The importance of policy design fit for effectiveness: a qualitative comparative analysis of policy integration in regional transport planning," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 629-662, September.
    19. Leonore Haelg & Sebastian Sewerin & Tobias S. Schmidt, 2020. "The role of actors in the policy design process: introducing design coalitions to explain policy output," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 309-347, June.
    20. Daniel Béland & Michael Howlett & Philip Rocco & Alex Waddan, 2020. "Designing policy resilience: lessons from the Affordable Care Act," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 269-289, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:50:y:2021:i:9:s0048733321000585. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.