IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v168y2021ics0040162521001402.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evidence-based portfolios of innovation policy mixes: A cross-country analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Russo, Margherita
  • Pavone, Pasquale

Abstract

In the past decade many papers have discussed innovation policies in terms of their design, assessment and impact. Drawing on those contributions, the ECOECD STIP Compass suggests a detailed taxonomy of innovation policies with regard to their themes, target groups of beneficiaries and instruments. Implemented with a web platform, that taxonomy has promoted an extensive collection of information on innovation policy initiatives across OECD member countries. Using the STIP dataset, in this paper we employ that taxonomy to identify the innovation policy mixes by referring to all the dimensions encompassed in each policy initiative, i.e., themes, targets, instruments. The evidence-based multidimensional analyses yield a typology and set of topics of innovation policy mixes that we use to conduct a cross-country analysis of innovation policy portfolios. Although the results of the cross-country analysis are statistically significant, caution is necessary when using them because of three main fragilities of the current version of STIP Compass: the absence of information on innovation policies at subnational level; the classification of the largest group of target beneficiaries, i.e. innovation intermediaries; the quality of some information essential for enhancing the analysis. The proposed navigation of the STIP Compass data is freely accessible online.

Suggested Citation

  • Russo, Margherita & Pavone, Pasquale, 2021. "Evidence-based portfolios of innovation policy mixes: A cross-country analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:168:y:2021:i:c:s0040162521001402
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120708
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162521001402
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120708?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. Jakob Edler & Paul Cunningham & Abdullah Gök & Philip Shapira (ed.), 2016. "Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 16121.
    2. Edurne Magro & Mikel Navarro & Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, 2014. "Coordination-Mix: The Hidden Face of STI Policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 31(5), pages 367-389, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Arne Isaksen & Michaela Trippl, 2017. "Innovation in space: the mosaic of regional innovation patterns," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(1), pages 122-140.
    5. Lanahan, Lauren & Feldman, Maryann P., 2015. "Multilevel innovation policy mix: A closer look at state policies that augment the federal SBIR program," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1387-1402.
    6. Guerzoni, Marco & Raiteri, Emilio, 2015. "Demand-side vs. supply-side technology policies: Hidden treatment and new empirical evidence on the policy mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 726-747.
    7. José Guimón & Caroline Paunov, 2019. "Science-industry knowledge exchange: A mapping of policy instruments and their interactions," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 66, OECD Publishing.
    8. Margherita Russo & Francesco Pagliacci & Pasquale Pavone & Anna Giorgi, 2019. "RIS3 in macro-regional strategies: tools to design and monitor integrated territorial development paths," Department of Economics 0145, University of Modena and Reggio E., Faculty of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    9. Paul Cunningham & Jakob Edler & Kieron Flanagan & Philippe Larédo, 2016. "The innovation policy mix," Chapters, in: Jakob Edler & Paul Cunningham & Abdullah Gök & Philip Shapira (ed.), Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact, chapter 17, pages 505-542, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Magro, Edurne & Wilson, James R., 2019. "Policy-mix evaluation: Governance challenges from new place-based innovation policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    11. Mariana Mazzucato & Gregor Semieniuk, 2017. "Public financing of innovation: new questions," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(1), pages 24-48.
    12. Magro, Edurne & Wilson, James R., 2013. "Complex innovation policy systems: Towards an evaluation mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1647-1656.
    13. Caloffi, Annalisa & Mariani, Marco & Rossi, Federica & Russo, Margherita, 2018. "A comparative evaluation of regional subsidies for collaborative and individual R&D in small and medium-sized enterprises," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1437-1447.
    14. Zhang, Yi & Zhang, Guangquan & Chen, Hongshu & Porter, Alan L. & Zhu, Donghua & Lu, Jie, 2016. "Topic analysis and forecasting for science, technology and innovation: Methodology with a case study focusing on big data research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 179-191.
    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. Peng Cheng & Houtian Tang & Yue Dong & Ke Liu & Ping Jiang & Yaolin Liu, 2021. "Knowledge Mapping of Research on Land Use Change and Food Security: A Visual Analysis Using CiteSpace and VOSviewer," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-22, December.
    2. Ba, Zhichao & Ma, Yaxue & Cai, Jinyao & Li, Gang, 2023. "A citation-based research framework for exploring policy diffusion: Evidence from China's new energy policies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    3. Chong, Zhaotian & Wang, Qunwei & Wang, Lei, 2023. "Is the photovoltaic power generation policy effective in China? A quantitative analysis of policy synergy based on text mining," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    4. Howoldt, David, 2024. "Characterising innovation policy mixes in innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    5. Jiang, Zihao & Liu, Zhiying, 2022. "Policies and exploitative and exploratory innovations of the wind power industry in China: The role of technological path dependence," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    6. De Silva, Muthu & Gokhberg, Leonid & Meissner, Dirk & Russo, Margherita, 2021. "Addressing societal challenges through the simultaneous generation of social and business values: A conceptual framework for science-based co-creation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    7. Wu, Qi & Cifuentes-Faura, Javier & Li, Xuelan & Wang, Yibo, 2024. "Evaluating social governance innovation policy in China: A study based on fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 106(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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. Liotard, Isabelle & Revest, Valérie, 2018. "Contests as innovation policy instruments: Lessons from the US federal agencies' experience," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 57-69.
    4. Elvira Uyarra & Kieron Flanagan & Edurne Magro & James R Wilson & Markku Sotarauta, 2017. "Understanding regional innovation policy dynamics: Actors, agency and learning," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(4), pages 559-568, June.
    5. Tea Petrin & Dragana Radicic, 2023. "Instrument policy mix and firm size: is there complementarity between R&D subsidies and R&D tax credits?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 181-215, February.
    6. Kiman Kim & Sang Ok Choi & Sooyeon Lee, 2021. "The Effect of a Financial Support on Firm Innovation Collaboration and Output: Does Policy Work on the Diverse Nature of Firm Innovation?," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(2), pages 645-675, June.
    7. Ricard Esparza-Masana, 2022. "Towards Smart Specialisation 2.0. Main Challenges When Updating Strategies," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(1), pages 635-655, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Borrás, Susana & Laatsit, Mart, 2019. "Towards system oriented innovation policy evaluation? Evidence from EU28 member states," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 312-321.
    10. Magro, Edurne & Wilson, James R., 2019. "Policy-mix evaluation: Governance challenges from new place-based innovation policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    11. Aalto, Eero & Gustafsson, Robin, 2020. "Innovation Promotion Rationales and Impacts – A Review," ETLA Reports 99, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    12. Daniel Catalá‐Pérez & María de‐Miguel‐Molina, 2021. "Analyzing Territorial and Sectorial Dimensions of Public–Private Partnerships in Science, Technology, and Innovation policies," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(1), pages 113-138, January.
    13. Howoldt, David, 2024. "Characterising innovation policy mixes in innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    14. Stojčić, Nebojša & Srhoj, Stjepan & Coad, Alex, 2020. "Innovation procurement as capability-building: Evaluating innovation policies in eight Central and Eastern European countries," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    15. 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.
    16. Jiang, Zihao & Shi, Jiarong, 2023. "Government intervention and technological innovation in the wind power industry in China: The role of industrial environmental turbulence," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 344(C).
    17. Henderson, Dylan & Roche, Neil, 2018. "From consensus to conflict in the regional policy mix for broadband deployment: examining the role of informal coordination," 29th European Regional ITS Conference, Trento 2018 184944, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    18. Švarc, Jadranka & Dabić, Marina, 2021. "Transformative innovation policy or how to escape peripheral policy paradox in European research peripheral countries," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    19. Christoph March & Ina Schieferdecker, 2021. "Technological Sovereignty as Ability, Not Autarky," CESifo Working Paper Series 9139, CESifo.
    20. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Prüfer, Malte, 2024. "The interplay between public procurement of innovation and R&D grants: Empirical evidence from Belgium," ZEW Discussion Papers 24-055, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    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:tefoso:v:168:y:2021:i:c:s0040162521001402. 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.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.