s3 platform – peer review workshop 25-26 february 2014, riga 1 ris3: implementation and policy...
TRANSCRIPT
S3 Platform – Peer Review Workshop
25-26 February 2014, Riga
1
RIS3: IMPLEMENTATIONRIS3: IMPLEMENTATION AND POLICY MIXES AND POLICY MIXES
Claire NAUWELAERSIndependent expert in STI policy
KEY Challenges RIS3KEY Challenges RIS3
2
Two novelties/key benefits of RIS3:
from introspection to “extrospection” : an open view to regional policiesfrom administrative to strategic management of policy
Main challenge in implementation of RIS3:
Translate broad strategies into efficient and integrated policy mixes
Main bottlenecks to “serious” implementation of RIS3:
Policy-makers resistance to: Long-term investments (returns beyond 4-year legislature…) Genuine prioritisation (selection and de-selection!) – coping with lobbies… Cross-domains, cross-level and cross-border policies
Little evidence to identify “white spaces” between sectors, clusters, poles,…Need for more robust, systematic and systemic policy evaluations
Implementing RIS3Implementing RIS3
3
Challenges:Overcoming path dependency and inertia:
adapting old institutions to new policy models developing unlearning capability in policy circles bringing coherence in “historical” policy mix
From «silo»-driven to «outcome»-driven policies: starting from desired outcomes rather than from instruments
machinery from incremental improvements in existing portfolios to radical
restructuring Developing systems for policy accountability focusing on effectiveness
rather than efficiency
Allowing policy experimentation (innovation!) in policy
The S3 OECD enquiryThe S3 OECD enquiry
• Priorities Implicit/explicit RDTI/economic
Regional/national
• Processes Selection criteria Stakeholders involvement
Analytical and evidence base
• Policies Policy instruments Budgets
Monitoring & EvaluationSource: OECD (2013) Smart Specialisation in global value chains: designing and assessing smart specialization strategies
Futurepotential
Key findings: PRIORITIESKey findings: PRIORITIES Difficulties to ensure the validity of responses to the question
of existence of explicit and implicit priorities
Inconsistency between: i) policy documents ; ii) budgetary allocations; and iii) existence of major institutes, organizations or programmes dedicated to the priorities.
Timing issue: priorities definition / policy mix definition
Explicit priorities are more frequent for research and innovation than for economic development
Prioritization is more intense at regional than at national level
Prioritization trends are on the rise, at strategic and implementation levels
Source: OECD (2013) Smart Specialisation in global value chains: designing and assessing smart specialization strategies
Key findings: POLICIESKey findings: POLICIESGAP POLICY FORMULATION / IMPLEMENTATIONGAP POLICY FORMULATION / IMPLEMENTATIONNo clear link between priorities and policy mixesA strategic view on public « innovation » budget is
missingKey policy instruments:
Dedicated institutes, competence centres Thematic R&D funding programmes Cluster policies (regional level)
A-typical policy instruments: Innovation-driven public procurement Bonus system in generic funding programmes
• Monitoring and evaluation systems hardly tuned to priorities Source: OECD (2013) Smart Specialisation in global value chains:
designing and assessing smart specialization strategies
Policy Mix DefinitionPolicy Mix DefinitionCombination of policy instruments,
which interact to influence framework conditions,alleviate barriers and raise capabilities for
innovationInstruments: all programmes, organisations, rules and regulations with an active involvement of the public sector, which intentionally or unintentionally affect innovation
Interactions: the influence of one policy instrument is modified by the co-existence of other policy instruments in the policy mix
Influences on innovation are either direct (instruments from innovation policy field) or indirect (all policy instruments from any policy field which indirectly impact on innovation)
8Source: UNU-MERIT « policy mix » project http://ec.europa.eu/research/policymix
Policy mix conceptual Policy mix conceptual frameworkframework
NIS / RIS Characteristics
Broad Policy Objectives
Policy impacts
R&D policy instrument
R&D policy instrument R&D
policy instrument
R&D policy instrument
innov policy instrument
R&D policy instrument
Innov policy instrument
R&D policy instrument
Innov policy instrument
Other policy instrument
Other policy instrument
Other policy instrument
Other policy instrument
Other policy instrument
Other policy instrument
Governance
9
Policy mix designPolicy mix design
10
1) Challenges for RIS2) Policy Objectives and RIS3 priorities3) Gaps between Challenges and
Objectives 4) Instruments (various policy domains)5) Gaps between Objectives and
Instruments6) History (inertia!)7) Actors (stickiness, agility, hidden
agendas…)8) Balances within policy portfolio9) Interactions (positive, negative)10)Governance (horizontal, vertical)
Two complementary views Two complementary views on policy mixeson policy mixes
11
1. Routes and Balances – macro view
What is the balance of instruments from
various domains in a portfolio, and with
which policy objectives are these better
aligned ?
2. Interactions – micro view
How do various policy instruments interact
within a portfolio of policies ? Final
effect ?
Different regions require Different regions require different strategiesdifferent strategies
12
Type of region
Main strategyBuilding on current advantages (science
push/technology-led or a mix)
Supporting socio-economic transformation
Catching-up: towards the creation of knowledge-
based capabilities
Knowledge hubsKnowledge and technology
hubs
Knowledge-intensive city/capital districts
Industrial production zonesUS States with average S&T
performance Service and natural
resources regions in knowledge-intensive
countries
Medium-tech manufacturing
and service providers
Traditional manufacturing regions
Non S&T-driven regions
Structural inertia or de-industrialising regions Primary sector-intensive
regions Source: Regions and Innovation Policy OECD 2011
Different regions require Different regions require different strategiesdifferent strategies
13Source: Regions and Innovation Policy OECD 2011
No external connection
Single external connection
Multiple external connections
Centralised RIS
Build hinge through hub
Build multiple global
connections
Regional networking
Decentralised Dense RIS
Find external connection/get a
global perspective
Build multiple global
connections
Anchor global firms regionally
Decentralised Sparse RIS
Change system/path-breaking grand
project
Increase regional networking/build global connections
Increase regional
networking/prepare for
global linkages
Key issues for building smart Key issues for building smart and efficient policy mixesand efficient policy mixes
14Source: Regions and Innovation Policy OECD 2011
• Value of integrated (“packaged”) policy instruments
• Finding the right balance between instruments addressing firms in isolation v. systemic relations; fostering internal v. external connections
• Drawing effectively on interactions between several areas of policy
• Vital component of policy mixes: human resources for innovation and associated policies to attract and retain talent
• Putting more weight on demand-side policy instruments, in particular by introducing innovation-oriented public procurement
15
Policy Domains dependPolicy Domains dependon each otheron each other
InnovationPolicy
Legal/IPRPolicy
Labour MarketPolicy
EducationPolicy
SciencePolicy
CompetitionPolicy
DefencePolicy
MacroeconomicPolicy
SectorPolicies
Monetary/FiscalPolicies
RegionalPolicy
Industry/TradePolicy
R&DPolicy
HealthPolicy
EnvironmentalPolicy
InfrastructurePolicies
Policy InteractionsPolicy InteractionsInteractions between policies:
positive and complementary, with one amplifying the effect of the other in terms of impacts on innovation
negative and interfering destructively, with one attenuating the impact of another
neutral and functioning quite independently, with impacts also independent
One policy problem One new instrument ?the extensive implementation of new instruments bears increased risks of substitutive effects or unwanted interferences 16
17
Example: stimulating start-ups Example: stimulating start-ups versus supporting academic researchversus supporting academic researchGO Bio Programme Germany: grants for university researchers to advance research towards marketable products and start a university spin-off (~30 m€)
Initiative for Excellence: Funding of top-level academic research at German Universities - selecting 10 top-level Universities, funding of special research programmes, both providing additional research funding (~1.9 b€)
leading university institutes in biotechnology were successful in acquiring IfE money - researchers focus on academic careers, little demand for Go Bio
18
ROUTE 1: promote establishment of new innovative firms
ROUTE 2: stimulate further innovation in innovative firms
ROUTE 3: stimulate innovation in non-innovative firms
ROUTE 4: attract innovative firms from abroad
ROUTE 5: increase innovation in cooperation with public sector
Mapping types of instruments versus routes
Defining broad routes Defining broad routes to increase innovationto increase innovation
Prioritizing between routesPrioritizing between routes
Defining priorities between routes should ideally be informed by:
NIS/RIS SWOT analyses Policy reviews and evaluation Intelligent trans-national benchmarking practices
In reality, often product of: Policy fashions or fads, EU “standards” Naive imitation strategies from trans-national
observations Pressure of lobbies: priorities as addition of
narrow specific interests Parallel views between “science” and
“economy” ministries
19
Prioritizing between routesPrioritizing between routes
Evolution of priorities amongst the routes characterised by:
History weight: stickiness of main policy orientations – stability of structures – path dependency
Cumulative processes: attention to new routes adds up to previously retained routes
Changes in the RIS: need for radical changes ? need for a threshold of changes to be effective ?
Condition: High degree of strategic policy intelligence AND/OR radical shifts in NIS/RIS
20
ExamplesExamples RoutesRoutes Belgium
Route 5 (cooperation) covered by a large set of instruments Route 4 (FDI): most heavily influenced by non-innovation policies Route 3 (non-innovative firms): less attention, most difficult, big prospect
for competitiveness. Use of instruments from economic and industrial policy, but also from the education and training spheres. Coordination of policies is needed !
Denmark Route 2 (large R&D performing firms) in high-tech sectors: priority of
Globalisation Strategy Neglect of the potential of SMEs in other sectors ? (Routes 3 and 5)
Rhône-Alpes Initial focus on Route 3 (increase technological absorptive capability) Routes 5 (cooperation) is a continuing, traditional focus for French regional
policy Shift towards “Routes of Excellence” Route 2 (R&D-performing firms)
21
Portfolios composition Portfolios composition associated to routesassociated to routes
No standard portfolio by route – but some typical menus
Similar instruments with different characteristics contribute to different routes (e.g. conditions for R&D grants; various types of tax incentives)
Systemic instruments and mini-mixes span through many routes
Often limited view on range of instruments linked to routes (“one problem” – “one response”)
When made explicit, limited to innovation policy domain
Subject to trade-offs : broadening versus deepening R&D efforts / excellence versus cohesion
Other horizontal priorities run across the Routes:Thematic; internationalisation; human resources 22
PolicyPolicy governancegovernance aspectsaspects
What strategies are available to meet the need for coherence and coordinated implementation of policy mixes?Strategic statements… to provide clear
signal and roadmap to all involved stakeholders (goals, indicators…)
High level coordination bodies…with high-level political support and involving quadruple helix stakeholders
‘Mini-mixes’: smaller scale, packaged set of instruments designed as coherent whole, addressing various aspects of innovation
23
Industrial restructuring: Industrial restructuring: two approaches with different impacts two approaches with different impacts
on policy mix design on policy mix design
24
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Low-techmanufac-
turing
Medium-techmanufac-
turing
High-techmanufac-
turing
Knowledgeintensiveservices
Otherservices
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
R&D Intensity
Share in total production
R&
D e
xpen
dit
ure
, %
in t
ota
l pro
du
ctio
n
Sec
tor
pro
du
ctio
n,
% in
to
tal p
rod
uct
ion
R&D intensification approachHigh-tech industry approach
High-tech industry approachHigh-tech industry approach Identifying right target sectors
Involving national and regional levels
Bottom-up definition of research agendas
Sequencing public support by target groups
Involving non-R&D policies early, incl. regulation issues
Harmonising technology-focused and generic R&D policies
Establishing research infrastructures, esp. in basic research
Connecting actors and encouraging industry-science links
Addressing skill demands
Encouraging internationalisation early
Following a long-term view, but being flexible to address new
challenges25
R&D intensification approachR&D intensification approach Identifying barriers to R&D/innovation
Developing a coherent industrial restructuring strategy and
programme
Harmonising R&D policy with economic strategy
Providing effective incentives for firms to invest in R&D
Offering a favourable business environment
Ensuring human capital supply
Developing domestic demand for innovation
Encouraging internationalisation
Adapting policy to changes in the environment
26
Mini-mixesMini-mixesProgrammes that package different instruments (funding mechanisms - programme objectives - delivery mechanisms- target groups) and/or routes, into one coherent initiative. Designed in such a way that the elements complement each other to achieve a specific policy goal (e.g. innovation in bio-tech) or support a specific target group (e.g. NTBFs).
Often across different governance boundaries
Thesis: mini-mixes have a more ‘synergetic’ approach and might therefore be more effective and have fewer internal conflicting influences
27
Mini-mix example: Technopartner NLMini-mix example: Technopartner NL
Integrated programme to support technology-based start-upsTechnoPartner Seed capital facilityTechnoPartner Knowledge Exploitation Subsidy Arrangement (SKE) (pre-seed funding for R&D etc.)Patent support facility (legal & strategic advice)TechnoPartner platform (exchange of experience)Business Angel Programme (management support)Institutional pillar (strategic intelligence)
28
Mini-mixesMini-mixes success factorssuccess factorsRequire some form of stakeholder involvement and/or
expert opinion; Governments thus need to develop / mobilise the strategic intelligence for such a process;
In cluster type mini-mixes, consider tax-payers perspective and ensure open and transparent process
Systematic review of existing mechanisms necessary
No single recipe for the implementation of such mini-mixes, this is context - specific
The evaluation and monitoring of mini-mixes is an area that needs further development
29
Which policyWhich policy instruments?instruments?
30
Target of supportForm and focus of innovation support services for SMEs
Reactive tools providing inputs for innovation
Proactive tools focusing on learning to innovate
Global connections
Excellence polesCross-border technology centresFunding for international R&D or innovation projects
International technology transfer schemes Mobility schemesSupport for global networking of firmsCross-border innovation vouchersLead market initiatives
Regional systemCollective technology or innovation centres
Cluster policiesProactive brokers, match-makersInnovation vouchers Support for regional networking of firmsSchemes acting on the culture of innovation
Individual FirmsIncubators with “hard” supportTraditional “reactive” technology centresSeed and venture capital fundsR&D subsidies or tax incentives
Management adviceIncubators with “soft” support“Proactive” Technology centresAudits, monitoring of needsInnovation CoachInnovation management trainingTechno-economic intelligence schemes
Source: Regions and Innovation Policy OECD 2011
Which policyWhich policy instruments?instruments?
31Source: Regions and Innovation Policy OECD 2011
Adapt governance structures
• Improve coordination• Improve governance mechanisms (incl. agenda, formulation etc.)
Strengthen human capital
Create an innovation culture
• Interest of science among youth and society• General awareness• Rewards, awards, prizes
Improve actors’interactions
Improve actors’competencies,
investments and incentives to innovate
Improve policy governance
Evaluate the impact of innovation policies
• Monitor innovation• Feed back into policy
Improve supply of skills for innovation
• Education systems and participation to HE• Supply the right mix of non S&T skills / S&T skills • PhD and Postdocs• Broaden access to S&T studies and ensure equity
Ensure good employment
conditions and LLL• Attractiveness of researchers careers• Sectoral mobility• Opportunities of LLL
STI platforms and infrastructures
• Physical infrastructures (incl. ICT)• Industry-science (incl. technology platforms, science parks etc.)• Clusters and CoE • Open innovation
Valuation and circulation of
knowledge• IPRs• Knowledge markets
Adjusting to globalisation
• Internationalisation of domestic firms • Attract FDI and foreign firms• International mobility of human capital
Public research• Additional funding• Revision of funding mechanisms• Reform of PROs• Strengthen public research infrastructures
Business R&D• Additional funding • Stimulate private investments in R&D• Provide non financial support
Public sector innovation• e-government and public services delivery• Public administrations and govt demand for innovation
Private sector innovation
• Additional funding • Stimulate private investments in innovation• Provide non financial support
1
2
3
4
7
6
5 8
9
10
11
12
32Source: OECD Innovation Policy Platform
Which policyWhich policy instruments?instruments?
RIS3 “smart” implementationRIS3 “smart” implementationCoherence, Coordination, Communication
Tailoring policy goals and priorities to regional situation
Tailoring policy mixes to policy goals: Macro balances in policy mixes
Micro synergies within policy mixes
Think and act cross-domains, cross-actors, cross-levels, cross-borders
Use of Strategic Policy Intelligence Tools
Monitoring and evaluation targets, indicators, analyses
Outcome-oriented and evidence-based policy implementation
33