Policy learning and innovation theory: an interactive and co-evolving process

By L. Mytelka, Keith Smith. 2002

388 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This paper explores links between the development of innovation theory since the late 1970s, and the evolution of innovation policy ideas, primarily in the 1990s. The argument is that there is a close connection between theory and policy, so that theory and policy learning can be seen as an integrated, co-evolving and interactive process. We analyse the theory-policy learning link in terms of two phases. We suggest that the complex economic crisis of the 1970s created an opening for rival analyses of events. During the 1980s, the development of evolutionary theories (pioneered by Nelson and Winter) and of empirically-based theories of the innovation process (pioneered by Nathan Rosenberg) created a framework in which policy agencies could consider heterodox ideas concerning objectives and instruments of public policy. By the early 1990s policy-makers, particularly in Europe, came to see RTD and innovation policies not just as important arenas of action in themselves, but as instruments towards more wide ranging policy objectives. The policy agencies involved, though hierarchical, were characterised by relatively open structures that permitted a degree of intellectual diversity: so organisations like the OECD and the European Commission played a central role, whereas the World Bank, for example, did not. Increasing policy interest stimulated a second phase of research in the 1990s, sponsored both nationally and by various EU programmes, in which expanding the innovation-oriented knowledge base became a significant objective for policy-makers. The paper argues that the theory-policy link has been central to the intellectual development of this field, which would have been impossible within the constraints of existing disciplinary structures and university funding systems. At the same time the analytical achievements have permitted a wide expansion in the conceptualization of policy targets and in the design of instruments available to policy-makers. In a sense, this is itself an evolutionary story: of a crisis and a conjunctural niche that permitted the creation and (so far) survival of a set of diverse and certainly non-conventional ideas.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Management of Technology and Innovation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7805062390a1192410071cf0ee0fe568e69a45bf

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 Global and Planetary Change

In Management of Technology and Innovation

Citations in the corpus

Evolutionary approaches for sustainable innovation policies: From niche to paradigm? (2009, background): “The theory behind modern innovation policy is broadly indicated, e.g. by Mytelka and Smith (2002).”
Do subsidies have positive impacts on R&D and innovation activities at the firm level? (2009, background): “To detect whether R&D policies are efficient, and under what circumstances, is important for both innovation theory and policy practice (Mytelka & Smith, 2002).”
INNOVATION POLICIES FOR DEVELOPMENT: TOWARDS A SYSTEMIC EXPERIMENTATION- BASED APPROACH (2009, background): “According to the literature on innovation system policies ( Mytelka and Smith 2002; Borras et al, Forthcoming;”
Fostering university-industry R&D collaborations in European Union countries (2015, background): “…Programme in Education and Training for Technology (COMETT), SPRINT, and other programmes that supported R&D development have resulted in what Mytelka and Smith (2002) described as: THE WHITAKER INSTITUTE WORKING PAPER NO. 42 11 Every significant institution working in the innovation field…”
R&D policy instruments – a critical review of what we do and don’t know (2016, background): “Of particular significance is the shift from linear to systemic approaches, which has brought about the development of a more interactive process between policy learning and innovation theory (Mytelka and Smith 2002).”
Handbook of innovation systems and developing countries (2009, background): “According to the literature on innovation system policies (Mytelka and Smith, 2002; Borrás et al., 2009; Chaminade and Edquist, 2006), governments are supposed to design innovation policies addressing specifi c systemic problems within the national innovation systems.”
The Role of Human Capital in Lowering the Barriers to Engaging in Innovation: Evidence from the Spanish Innovation Survey (2014, background): “First, from an innovation policy perspective and in order to foster innovation-based competition dynamics, it is important to identify the extent to which the population of potentially innovative firms is being deterred by entry barriers to innovation (Mytelka and Smith, 2002).”
What is evolutionary about ‘regional systems of innovation’? Implications for regional policy (2009, background): “This has been challenged by a contrasting argument on the bounded rationality and imperfect information held by policy makers and the adaptive learning—rather than optimizing—behavior of decision makers (Metcalfe 1995; Mytelka and Smith 2002).”
Rationales for Public Policy Intervention in the Innovation Process: Systems of Innovation Approach (2010, background): “2 As many studies have argued, the OECD played a significant role in the dissemination of the concept to national governments (Mylteka and Smith, 2002; Godin, 2004; Sharif, 2006) The paper will be structured as follows.”
Re-municipalisation in the early twenty-first century: water in France and energy in Germany (2013, background): “As learning is interactive (Mytelka and Smith 2002), their learning and agency do not however occur in isolation from the struggle between the competing public sector and privatist paradigms.”
Policy Learning and Organizational Capacities in Innovation Policies (2011, background): “We know, for example, that the remarkable change in innovation policy during the past three decades has been a process of co-evolution between theoretical ideas and policy design, and that this has been largely based on the activism of experts and social scientists (Mytelka and Smith, 2002).”
Exploring the impact of open innovation on national systems of innovation — A theoretical analysis (2012, neutral): “As such, commercialising technology is a complex process, involving different parties such as users, suppliers, rivals, and other partners in the value network [3,36,102].”