IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/3rj94.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Innovation assessment: governing through periods of disruptive technological change

Author

Listed:
  • Hasselbalch, Jacob Adam

    (Copenhagen Business School)

Abstract

Current regulatory approaches are ill-equipped to address the challenges of governing through periods of disruptive technological change. This article hones in on the use of assessment regimes at the level of the European Union, particularly in the work of the Commission, to argue for a missing middle between technology assessment and impact assessment. Technology assessment focuses on the upstream governance of science and technology, while impact assessment focuses on the downstream governance of the impacts of specific policy options. What is missing is a form of midstream governance, which I label innovation assessment, to steer polities through periods of disruptive technological change, during which innovations have taken concrete forms and are beginning to diffuse, but still exhibit much scope for rapid, unexpected change and alternative trajectories of development. By juxtaposing these three forms of assessment regimes, I define the main dimensions along which they vary.

Suggested Citation

  • Hasselbalch, Jacob Adam, 2017. "Innovation assessment: governing through periods of disruptive technological change," SocArXiv 3rj94, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:3rj94
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/3rj94
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5a0aefd9594d90026ac0671d/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/3rj94?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:48:y:2010:i::p:1065-1081 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Parson, Edward A, 1995. "Integrated assessment and environmental policy making : In pursuit of usefulness," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4-5), pages 463-475.
    3. Richard Owen & Phil Macnaghten & Jack Stilgoe, 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 751-760, December.
    4. Ellen-Marie Forsberg & Erik Thorstensen & Rasmus Øjvind Nielsen & Erik de Bakker, 2014. "Assessments of emerging science and technologies: Mapping the landscape," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 306-316.
    5. Ely, Adrian & Van Zwanenberg, Patrick & Stirling, Andrew, 2014. "Broadening out and opening up technology assessment: Approaches to enhance international development, co-ordination and democratisation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 505-518.
    6. Schaper-Rinkel, Petra, 2013. "The role of future-oriented technology analysis in the governance of emerging technologies: The example of nanotechnology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 444-452.
    7. Vivien A. Schmidt, 2013. "Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘Throughput’," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 61(1), pages 2-22, March.
    8. Wynne, B., 1975. "The rhetoric of consensus politics: a critical review of technology assessment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 108-158, May.
    9. Desmond Dinan, 2016. "Governance and Institutions: A More Political Commission," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54, pages 101-116, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Woodson, Thomas S. & Hoffmann, Elina & Boutilier, Sophia, 2021. "Evaluating the NSF broader impacts with the Inclusion-Immediacy Criterion: A retrospective analysis of nanotechnology grants," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    2. Muireann O'Dwyer, 2022. "Gender and Crises in European Economic Governance: Is this Time Different?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 152-169, January.
    3. Harald König & Martina F. Baumann & Christopher Coenen, 2021. "Emerging Technologies and Innovation—Hopes for and Obstacles to Inclusive Societal Co-Construction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-13, November.
    4. Wiarda, Martijn & Sobota, Vladimir C.M. & Janssen, Matthijs J. & van de Kaa, Geerten & Yaghmaei, Emad & Doorn, Neelke, 2023. "Public participation in mission-oriented innovation projects," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    5. Dirk Meissner & Wolfgang Polt & Nicholas S. Vonortas, 2017. "Towards a broad understanding of innovation and its importance for innovation policy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(5), pages 1184-1211, October.
    6. Forsberg, Ellen-Marie & Quaglio, GianLuca & O'Kane, Hannah & Karapiperis, Theodoros & Van Woensel, Lieve & Arnaldi, Simone, 2015. "Assessment of science and technologies: Advising for and with responsibility," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 21-27.
    7. Zhang, Stephen X. & Chen, Jiyao & He, Liangxing & Choudhury, Afreen, 2023. "Responsible Innovation: The development and validation of a scale," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    8. Richard Hyman & Rebecca Gumbrell-McCormick, 2020. "(How) can international trade union organisations be democratic?," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 26(3), pages 253-272, August.
    9. Christoph Engel & Luigi Mittone & Azzurra Morreale, 2024. "Outcomes or participation? Experimentally testing competing sources of legitimacy for taxation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(2), pages 563-583, April.
    10. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    11. Alexander Kentikelenis & Erik Voeten, 2021. "Legitimacy challenges to the liberal world order: Evidence from United Nations speeches, 1970–2018," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 721-754, October.
    12. Isuru Koswatte & Chandrika Fernando, 2022. "Policy Development for Crisis Management in the Context of Sri Lanka," Managing Global Transitions, University of Primorska, Faculty of Management Koper, vol. 20(3 (Fall)), pages 295-327.
    13. John R. Moodie & Viktor Salenius & Michael Kull, 2022. "From impact assessments towards proactive citizen engagement in EU cohesion policy," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 1113-1132, October.
    14. Carina I. Hausladen & Regula Hänggli Fricker & Dirk Helbing & Renato Kunz & Junling Wang & Evangelos Pournaras, 2024. "How voting rules impact legitimacy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    15. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    16. Marlous Blankesteijn & Bart Bossink, 2020. "Assessing the Legitimacy of Technological Innovation in the Public Sphere: Recovering Raw Materials from Waste Water," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.
    17. Ruiten, Kyra & Pesch, Udo & Rodhouse, Toyah & Correljé, Aad & Spruit, Shannon & Tenhaaf, Antje & Dijkshoorn, Jochem & van den Berg, Susan, 2023. "Drawing the line: Opening up and closing down the siting of a high voltage transmission route in the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    18. Estibaliz Sáez de Cámara & Idoia Fernández & Nekane Castillo-Eguskitza, 2021. "A Holistic Approach to Integrate and Evaluate Sustainable Development in Higher Education. The Case Study of the University of the Basque Country," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, January.
    19. Luciana Maines da Silva & Claudia Cristina Bitencourt & Kadígia Faccin & Tatiana Iakovleva, 2019. "The Role of Stakeholders in the Context of Responsible Innovation: A Meta-Synthesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, March.
    20. Kovacic, Zora & Giampietro, Mario, 2015. "Empty promises or promising futures? The case of smart grids," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 93(P1), pages 67-74.

    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:osf:socarx:3rj94. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.