IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v21y2012i3p167-182.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The practice of evaluation in innovation policy in Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Jakob Edler
  • Martin Berger
  • Michael Dinges
  • Abdullah Gök

Abstract

This article characterizes and analyses evaluation practice in national innovation policy across Europe. It is the first study that examines and interprets the characteristics, quality, usefulness, and consequences of evaluations in a systematic way. The analysis is based on the comprehensive INNO-Appraisal repository of 171 evaluation reports of national innovation policies of EU25 countries, conducted between 2002 and 2007. The article seeks (1) to assess the state of the art of evaluation in innovation policy at national level, (2) to understand how different key dimensions of evaluation (timing, purpose, methods, tendering process, etc.) relate to each other, and (3) to explore types of evaluations. On that basis, we (4) draw lessons as to what constitutes good practice in evaluation, as the results of the survey have been exchanged and discussed with a number of policy makers of the sample responsible for the evaluation. The article thus both contributes to the academic understanding of policy evaluation and supports use in policy practice. Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Jakob Edler & Martin Berger & Michael Dinges & Abdullah Gök, 2012. "The practice of evaluation in innovation policy in Europe," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 167-182, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:21:y:2012:i:3:p:167-182
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvs014
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Dirk Meissner & Sandrine Kergroach, 2021. "Innovation policy mix: mapping and measurement," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 197-222, February.
    2. Junwen Luo & Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros & Stefan Kuhlmann, 2019. "The balancing role of evaluation mechanisms in organizational governance—The case of publicly funded research institutions," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(4), pages 344-354.
    3. Janssen, Matthijs J., 2019. "What bangs for your buck? Assessing the design and impact of Dutch transformative policy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 78-94.
    4. Pierre-Benoit Joly & Mireille Matt, 2022. "Towards a new generation of research impact assessment approaches," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 621-631, June.
    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. Attila Havas, 2014. "Trapped by the high-tech myth: the need and chances for a new policy rationale," Chapters, in: Hartmut Hirsch-Kreinsen & Isabel Schwinge (ed.), Knowledge-Intensive Entrepreneurship in Low-Tech Industries, chapter 9, pages 193-217, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Satı, Zümrüt Ecevit, 2024. "Comparison of the criteria affecting the digital innovation performance of the European Union (EU) member and candidate countries with the entropy weight-TOPSIS method and investigation of its importa," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    8. Jesper Lindgaard Christensen & Ina Drejer & Poul Houman Andersen & Jacob Rubæk Holm, 2016. "Innovation policy: how can it best make a difference?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 135-139, February.
    9. Matthijs Janssen, 2016. "What bangs for your bucks? Assessing the design and impact of transformative policy," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 16-05, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Dec 2016.
    10. Kergroach, Sandrine, 2019. "National innovation policies for technology upgrading through GVCs: A cross-country comparison," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 258-272.
    11. Sofie Sandin, 2020. "Making Use of Evaluations to Support a Transition towards a More Sustainable Energy System and Society—An Assessment of Current and Potential Use among Swedish State Agencies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-26, October.
    12. Claire Nauwelaers & Inger Midtkandal & Inmaculada Periañez Forte, 2014. "RIS3 Implementation and Policy Mixes. S3 Policy Brief Series n° 07/2014 September 2014," JRC Research Reports JRC91917, Joint Research Centre.
    13. Radicic, Dragana, 2019. "National and international R&D support programmes and technology scouting in European small and medium enterprises (SMEs)," LEAF Working Paper Series 19-05, University of Lincoln, Lincoln International Business School, Lincoln Economics and Finance Research Group (LEAF).
    14. Ben R. Martin, 2015. "R&D Policy Instruments: A Critical Review of What We Do & Don't Know," Working Papers wp476, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    15. Attila Havas, 2015. "The persistent high-tech myth in the EC policy circles - Implications for the EU10 countries," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1517, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    16. Laurent Bach & Sandrine Wolff, 2022. "The BETA-EvaRIO impact evaluation method: towards a bridging approach?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 651-672, June.
    17. 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.
    18. Havas, Attila, 2014. "Mit mér(j)ünk?. Az innováció értelmezései - szakpolitikai következmények [The theory and measurement of innovation and its mutual effect on policy]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 1022-1059.
    19. Purkus, Alexandra & Lüdtke, Jan, 2020. "A systemic evaluation framework for a multi-actor, forest-based bioeconomy governance process: The German Charter for Wood 2.0 as a case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    20. Haegeman, Karel & Spiesberger, Manfred & Könnölä, Totti, 2017. "Evaluating foresight in transnational research programming," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 313-326.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:rseval:v:21:y:2012:i:3:p:167-182. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    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.