Presentation on theme: "Governance and learning in innovation policy - lessons from MONIT Svend Otto Remøe Prokontra AS OECD."— Presentation transcript:
Governance and learning in innovation policy - lessons from MONIT Svend Otto Remøe Prokontra AS OECD
Contents MONIT: Background and issues Governance and policy learning Obstacles and challenges in policy learning
Background The innovation driven economy and NIS The OECD growth study illustrated the importance of innovation for growth Is there a new role of government? From general NIS systems perspectives to sectoral case studies and integration of policy as endogenous in NIS A greater need to develop a 3rd generation innovation policy
Objectives of MONIT How national traditions and contexts generate and sustain policy orientations and mixes. How different policies interact to create a basis for developing horizontal policy. How to co-ordinate policies across institutional boundaries through inter-ministerial. collaboration and institutional mechanisms for policy learning within and between agencies and ministries. The key national capabilities for effective processes of policy formulation, co-ordination and implementation Exploratory study, ready-made generic solutions not to be expected
Key concepts From government to governance: A need to learn more about policy processes and institutions Co-ordination and coherence The policy cycle: Agenda setting and formulation, implementation and learning Horizontalization: Spanning ministerial boundaries Policy learning: managing the production, diffusion and use of policy relevant knowledge
Two views on policy making The exchange perspective: Actors with interests and preferences negotiate and outcomes are easily achieved without frictions (a perfect market view) The evolutionary perspective: Policy making take place within institutional arrangements, and cannot be understood without reference to historical, cultural and other factors (path dependency)
Integration Sectorial policy integration implies: –the incorporation of environmental concerns – the protection and long- term sustainability of natural life-support systems – into all stages of policymaking in non-environmental policy sectors, with a specific recognition of this goal as a guiding principle for the planning and execution of sectorial policy this should be accompanied by: –an attempt to aggregate presumed environmental consequences into an overall evaluation of governmental policy, and a commitment to minimize contradictions between environmental concerns and sectorial policies by assigning principled priority to the former over the latter.
A taxonomy of innovation policy (Den Hertog, Dialogic) DOMAINS / GOALSSectoral innovation policy Multi-sectoral innovation policy Core innovation policy i.e. aimed primarily at innovating (ultimately) industry and economic growth Innovation policy in a limited sense (basically technology and industrial policies) Integrated STI policies Broad innovation policy i.e. aimed at (ultimately) economic growth and Quality of life Innovation policies in other sectoral domains e.g. innovation policies in health, innovation policies in the environment Horizontal / comprehensive / integrated or coherent / systemic innovation policies
Barriers to horizontal policy integration Lack of understanding of IP in other domains Strong, segmented belief systems Schools of thought being reproduced through recruitment and socializing Lack of capability to exploit windows of opportunity to recouple problems, proposals and politics Definition/understanding of other policy areas as rivals Dominance of efficiency imperative in policy making Ineffective involvement of stakeholders Drivers and instruments of policy differ across domains
History Economic specialization defines long term path dependency Institutions and priorities have their defining moments Priorities and agendas are implicitly strongly influenced by traditions and corporatist systems for stakeholder involvement Reflective governance needed
6. Knowledge about biases Are biases reflected in processes of policy making? Do governments know what they represent and exclude? Are there misconceived holy cows in the system? Are the biases resulting from economic specialisation?
Sources of incoherence Often persistent gaps between what is perceived as challenges and institutional responses to meet them Competing rationalities in governments Persistent short-termism tend to undercut strategic needs NPM: Needs strategic support to enhance long-termism Different views and understanding of IP Different imperatives for different policy areas Fragmentation reduces strategic capabilities Competition and personal ambitions
Long termism Most countries need long term approaches for strategic priority setting But existing institutions and practices (fragmentation, budget mechamisms) prevail Many countries compensate for this through by-pass operations and new funding mechanisms
The use of evaluations in Austria Impacts of conducted evaluation N% Ex-post legitimating of the programme 2790 % Re-allocation of funds1033 % Input for stop-or-go decisions 620 % Substantial change of funding policy 930 % Change of processes2 7 % Other930 % Total30 Source: tip survey, Jörg 2004).
Building intelligence into policy learning Policy learning mostly takes place through ex ante mechanisms like foresight and white papers Evaluation too often used for legitimization Organisational mechanisms like tasks forces, team work etc support learning Increasing need for socio-institutional adjustments stimulate knowledge flows More systemic and integrated evaluations in innovation policy are needed Implementation and monitoring systems may boost learning
Some conclusions Integrate learning across the policy cycle Governance practices are tightly linked with capacities for policy learning Leadership and communication will support a learning oriented organisation Develop appropriate knowledge bases to support agenda setting, prioritization and implementation Develop pragmatic public-private interfaces to enhance information exchange Balancing imperatives in horizontal approaches