IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwwpp/dp159.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Prinzipien moderner Technologiepolitik

Author

Listed:
  • Georg Erber

Abstract

During the last decade a number of principles of modern technology policy emerged from the intensive debate on efficient designs of technology policy to encourage and strengthen the competitiveness of economies. While at the beginning national innovation systems like national economies seemed to be a sufficient framework the ongoing process of globalization of knowledge production and its rapid diffusion changed the perspective. However, each country as a distinct location in a global economy and in an emerging global innovation system has to develop its particular competence to become or remain an attractive partner. A number of principles should be applied as guide lines to design and evaluate the respective technology policy. Nine principles are proposed in the paper. Starting with the destinction of mission versus diffusion oriented technology policies one objective of modern technology policy is to search for an adequate policy mix. Next the concept of network development in innovation systems looks for ways to increase the efficiency of the innovation system. Each institution of the innovation system should become part of a competence centre which link research institutions with innovative companies and government agencies involved in the funding and regulation process of innovation, forming something like a triple helix, a term proposed by Leydesdorff. Competence centres link to each other in the innovation system and compete with others to win market shares in the innovation system. Furthermore each organisation should apply internally and externally the principles of learning with those of lean research organisations. The basic framework, however, to ensure efficiency in the innovation system is that the government establishes a legal and regulatory framework to foster institutional competition in the innovation system so that inefficient institutions are replaced by efficient ones through a self-selection process. Selection might be accomplished by a market mechanism or a continuous evaluation of institutions. Without sufficient scientific reputation or market success no institution should be entitled to permanent funding from public or private sources. The theoretical perfect split of public and private financing would be given by the difference between the private and social rate of return of an innovation activity, so that only the amount of positive externalities which cannot be internalised by private sources should be financed by public ones. Furthermore, giving financial subsidies to institutions should reflect that public funding should be judged by the principle of sustainable economic and social impacts on the innovation system. Since the innovation process usually is associated with the willingness to take risks and face uncertainties one should apply and develop modern techniques of risk analysis and risk control to increase the returns of investments in an innovation activity. Finally, one should take care that the subsidiary principle with respect to the policy institutions is applied especially in the context of diffusion and mission oriented technology policy. On the regional level diffusion policy should be at the centre stage while on the national level governments or even transnational organisations like the EU should concentrate on mission oriented technology policy and on the issue to establish a framework for institutional competition in the innovation system so that each institution in the innovation system faces a level playing field. For Germany in all areas of mission and diffusion oriented technology policy exist substantial inefficiencies. The first and most decisive step to reform, however, would be the introduction of institutional competition in this area to encourage a self-reorganisation process of institutions. Without institutional competition the current funding system has only marginal incentives to overcome their internal inertia. Since there is little or no risk of failure for current institutions, there is a substantial reluctance to rapidly adjust to the changed environment of a globalizing innovation system. Countries or regions, however, who will lead this transition to more efficient innovations systems in a global environment will be significantly more rewarded than those who follow behind. The regions where competence centres in the global innovations system are located will acquire the highest longterm per capita income increases for their regions in the future knowledge based global economy because they enable the region to simultaneously push forward the knowledge frontier and internalise the economic and social benefits of a global knowledge base most efficiently.

Suggested Citation

  • Georg Erber, 1998. "Prinzipien moderner Technologiepolitik," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 159, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp159
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.38546.de/dp159.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frank Fleischer & Kurt Hornschild, 1997. "Zur Förderung der ostdeutschen Industrieforschung durch das Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 64(38), pages 677-688.
    2. Georg Erber & Ernst Hagemann & Stephan Seiter, 1996. "Zur Industriepolitik in Europa," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 129, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    3. Witt, Ulrich, 1997. "Self-organization and economics--what is new?," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 489-507, October.
    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. Tim Goydke, 2011. "Institutional Change and the Role of Government: Technology Policy in Japan and Korea," Chapters, in: Werner Pascha & Cornelia Storz & Markus Taube (ed.), Institutional Variety in East Asia, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Tim Goydke, 2008. "Technologiepolitik in Japan und Südkorea: ist die klassische Industriepolitik passé?," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 77(2), pages 128-141.
    3. Joachim Ahrens, 2002. "Governance And The Implementation Of Technology Policy In Less Developed Countries," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4-5), pages 441-476.

    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. Gigante, Anna Azzurra, 2013. "Institutional Cognitive Economics: some recent developments," MPRA Paper 48278, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Marcus Alexander & Matthew C. Harding & Department of Economics & MIT, 2003. "Self-regulation and the Certification of the European Information Economy The Case of e-Healthcare Information Provision," Economics Series Working Papers 154, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    3. Witt, Ulrich, 2005. "'Production' in nature and production in the economy--second thoughts about some basic economic concepts," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 165-179, June.
    4. Werner Hölzl, 2005. "The evolutionary theory of the firm: Routines, complexity and change," Working Papers geewp46, Vienna University of Economics and Business Research Group: Growth and Employment in Europe: Sustainability and Competitiveness.
    5. Victor Court, 2018. "Energy Capture, Technological Change, and Economic Growth: An Evolutionary Perspective," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 1-27, September.
    6. Röhl, Klaus-Heiner, 2000. "Die Eignung der sächsischen Agglomerationsräume als Innovations- und Wachstumspole für die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung des Landes," Discussion Papers 1/2000, Technische Universität Dresden, "Friedrich List" Faculty of Transport and Traffic Sciences, Institute of Transport and Economics.
    7. Gigante, Anna Azzurra, 2016. "“Reviewing Path Dependence Theory in Economics: Micro–Foundations of Endogenous Change Processes”," MPRA Paper 75310, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Robert, Verónica & Yoguel, Gabriel, 2016. "Complexity paths in neo-Schumpeterian evolutionary economics, structural change and development policies," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 3-14.
    9. John Foster, 2005. "From simplistic to complex systems in economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 29(6), pages 873-892, November.
    10. Kummel, Reiner & Henn, Julian & Lindenberger, Dietmar, 2002. "Capital, labor, energy and creativity: modeling innovation diffusion," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 415-433, December.
    11. Fritz Rahmeyer, 2010. "A Neo-Darwinian Foundation of Evolutionary Economics. With an Application to the Theory of the Firm," Discussion Paper Series 309, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.
    12. Geoffrey Hodgson & Thorbjørn Knudsen, 2008. "In search of general evolutionary principles: Why Darwinism is too important to be left to the biologists," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 51-69, April.
    13. Dietrich, Andreas & Krüger, Jens J., 2010. "Numerical explorations of the Ngai-Pissarides model of growth and structural change," Darmstadt Discussion Papers in Economics 199, Darmstadt University of Technology, Department of Law and Economics.
    14. Brendan Markey-Towler, 2021. "Psychology of evolutionary economic behaviour," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 361-383, September.
    15. Thomas Brenner & Christian Cordes, 2004. "The autocatalytic character of the growth of production knowledge: What role does human labor play?," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2004-12, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    16. Egidi Massimo & Rizzello Salvatore, 2003. "Cognitive economics: Foundations and historical evolution," CESMEP Working Papers 200304, University of Turin.
    17. David Hsiehchen & Magdalena Espinoza & Antony Hsieh, 2018. "Evolution of collaboration and optimization of impact: self-organization in multinational research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 391-407, October.
    18. Erbes, Analía & Tacsir, Ezequiel & Yoguel, Gabriel, 2008. "Endogenous competences and linkages development," MPRA Paper 20434, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Geoffrey Hodgson, 2007. "Taxonomizing the Relationship Between Biology and Economics: A Very Long Engagement," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 169-185, August.
    20. Hodgson, Geoffrey M. & Knudsen, Thorbjorn, 2006. "Why we need a generalized Darwinism, and why generalized Darwinism is not enough," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 1-19, September.

    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:diw:diwwpp:dp159. 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    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.