Systems thinking, market failure, and the development of innovation policy: The case of Australia

By Mark Dodgson, A. Hughes, John Foster, S. Metcalfe. 2011

274 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management of Technology and Innovation, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/29e8c9d7d15bfd5c9fcd1dfd6a01fadfad4816ae

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

R&D policy instruments – a critical review of what we do and don’t know (2016, background): “Moreover, there is a danger here, as Flanagan and Uyarra (2016, this issue) note, of viewing policy instruments as coherent rational choices rather than contested outcomes (or even muddles) mediated by a range of “involved” policy entrepreneurs and other actors, and influenced by such factors as pat”
The market failure and the systemic failure rationales in technological innovation systems (2013, background): “For instance, in some countries such as Australia, while systems thinking infuses the policy debate, actual policy formulation is primarily shaped by market failure justifications (Dodgson et al., 2011).”
Dynamics and distribution of public and private research and extension roles for technological innovation and diffusion: Case studies of the implementation and adaptation of precision farming technologies (2017, background): “…the cost of failure (Marra et al., 2003; Pannell et al., 2006; Hay and Pearce, 2014a) and developed knowledge and processes around a current practice, can create a form of lock-in where new innovation has to provide advantage above a threshold before sustained change occurs (Dodgson et al., 2011).”
Repairing the R&D market failure: Public R&D subsidy and the composition of private R&D (2017, background): “If the R & D subsidy program is to be successful, it should be designed to support projects that are the most difficult for private firms to benefit from (Dodgson et al., 2011).”
Moving innovation systems research to the next level: towards an integrative agenda (2017, unknown): “Emphasis was put on the importance of systemic connectivity, evolving institutions, and organizational capabilities (Dodgson et al. , 2011), as well as on the need for systemic processes such as foresight to strengthen the legitimacy of priority-setting (Martin and Johnston, 1999).”
Public policy influence on renewable energy investments—A panel data study across OECD countries (2015, background): “These difficulties lead to market or system failures which provide grounds for policy intervention (Dodgson et al., 2011; Martin and Scott, 2000).”
A Cross-Strait Comparison of Innovation Policy under Industry 4.0 and Sustainability Development Transition (2017, background): “The interdependence and interactions of these three perspectives form a structure of nation’s innovation systems, and the resulting sources of industrial leadership and competitive advantage [10].”
National innovation system, social entrepreneurship, and rural economic growth in China (2017, background): “Moreover, most studies have examined these systems in highly industrialized economies (e.g., Dodgson et al., 2011; Freeman, 1987; Lundvall and Nielsen, 1999; Park and Park, 2003).”
The political economy of industrial policy: Structural interdependencies, policy alignment and conflict management (2019, background): “Similarly, in the context of most developed economies, while ‘systemic failures’ have been increasingly recognised in the fourth phase of the industrial policy debate (Klein Woolthuis et al., 2005; Tassey, 2014; Dogdson et al. 2011; Wade 2012; Stiglitz and Greenwald, 2014; O’Sullivan et al., 2013), ”
Inside the high-tech black box: A critique of technology entrepreneurship policy (2014, background): “…relationally ‘embedded’ and geographical bounded phenomena (Granovetter, 1985; Morgan, 1997; Gertler, 2010) where institutional actors (Gertler, 2010) and government policies often intermingle to play a central role in shaping innovation patterns (Freeman, 1995, 2002; Dodgson et al., 2011).”
Innovation Policy: Rationales, Lessons and Challenges (2017, background): “However, policymakers may also fail to address challenges adequately due to constraints created by path dependencies in the system, lock-in, capture by special interests etc., see e.g., the discussion by Dodgson et al. (2011) on the development of innovation policy in Australia.”