دسته‌بندی و انتخاب ابزارهای سیاستی علم، فناوری و نوآوری

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

دانشجوی دکترای مدیریت فناوری، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران

چکیده

بخش مهمی از فرآیند سیاست‌گذاری علم و فناوری، طراحی و انتخاب ابزارهای سیاستی است. از این رو درک صحیح ماهیت ابزارهای مختلف و منطق مداخله دولت به کمک سازوکار عملکردی آنها از اهمیت ویژه‌ای برخوردار است. این در حالی است که با توجه به تغییرات روزافزون، نوع نگاه به ماهیت و آثار ابزارها دائماً در حال تغییر و لذا نیازمند پایش و بازبینی است. در یک نگاه کلی می‌توان دسته‌بندی ابزارها را تحت سه جریان دسته‌بندی مبتنی بر منطق مداخله، مبتنی بر مخاطب هدف و مبتنی بر سازوکاری که ابزار بر اساس آن مسائل نظام نوآوری را برطرف می‌نماید بررسی نمود. با این منطق، در این مقاله یک دسته‌بندی کلی برای ابزارهای سیاستی شامل چهار دسته ابزارهای متمرکز بر تحریک طرف عرضه، ابزارهای متمرکز بر تحریک طرف تقاضا، ابزارهای متمرکز بر شکل‌گیری روابط نظام‌ساز و ابزارهای متمرکز بر زیرساخت و مقررات‌گذاری معرفی شده است. اگر چه جریان‌های جدیدتر، ابزارها را بر اساس نحوه حل مسائل نظام نوآوری دسته‌بندی و آنها را از این جهت نظام‌ساز می‌دانند، ویژگی دسته‌بندی مقاله حاضر، اصالت بخشیدن به ابزارهای نظام‌ساز به عنوان گونه خاصی از ابزارها است که از آنها جهت ظرفیت‌سازی برای تعاملات و روابط میان بازیگران نظام نوآوری استفاده می‌شود. به عنوان مطالعه موردی، 110 برنامه حمایتی از شرکت‌های دانش‌بنیان مورد بررسی قرار گرفته و نتایج مشخص نموده که بخش عمده حمایت‌ها در قالب تأمین مالی مستقیم طرف عرضه بوده و از میان گزینه‌های متنوع ابزارهای نظام‌ساز صرفاً به تعداد کمی از آنها توجه شده است.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Classification and Choice of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Instruments

نویسندگان [English]

  • Hamed Nasiri
  • Niloufar Radaei
- Ph.D. Candidate in Technology Management, Faculty of Management & Accounting, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Design and choice of policy instruments are considered as key factors in STI policy-making process. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the nature of policy instruments and the logic of government intervention in the innovation system, based on these instruments’ mechanisms. In addition, considering ongoing changes in STI policy-making environment, the approaches to the instruments and their effects are evolving and because of that, there is a need to review and revise our point of view. There are three major trends for classification of the instruments based on intervention logic, target groups, and the mechanism through that the instruments solve the problems of innovation systems. Respecting that, a focus-based classification is suggested in this paper which classifies the policy instruments into four main categories consist of instruments focused on stimulating the innovation supply-side, instruments focused on stimulating the innovation demand-side, instruments focused on the formation of systemic relations, and instruments focused on infrastructures and regulation. Although the more recent studies have a systemic approach to the policy instruments based on their potential for solving the problems of innovation systems, in this paper, we title a specific type of instruments as systemic instruments which their focus is on capacity building for more interactions and communications between different actors of the system. Eventually “110 Programs for Supporting Knowledge-based Companies in Iran” is reviewed as a case study and the results indicate that a major part of these programs is direct financial support. In addition, amongst different types of systemic instruments, few choices are considered in these programs.
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Innovation system
  • Innovation Policy Instruments
  • Innovation Demand-Side
  • Innovation Supply-Side
  • Systemic Instruments
[1] Borrás, S., and Edquist, C. (2013). The choice of innovation policy instruments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8), 1513-1522.

[2] Edler, J., Gök, A., Cunningham, P., & Shapira, P. (2016). Introduction: Making sense of innovation policy. In Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact. Edward Elgar Publishing.

[3] Secretariat of the Working Group on Assessment of Knowledge-based Companies and Institutions, Vice-Presidency for Science and Technology, Presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran. (2017). 110 Programs for Supporting Knowledge-based Companies. Retrieved from: http://isti.ir/index.aspx?siteid=1&pageid=8481&showitem=66&pro=nobak. {In Persian}.

[4] Howlett, M. (2009). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences, 42(1), 73-89.

[5] Ghazinoory, S., and Ghazinoori, S. (2017). Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Making; An Introduction. Tehran: Tarbiat Modares University Publication. {In Persian}.

[6] Salamon, L. M. (2001). The New Governance and the Tools of Public Action: An Introduction. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 28(5), 1611-1674.

[7] Edler, J., and Georghiou, L. (2007). Public procurement and innovation-Resurrecting the demand side. Research Policy, 36(7), 949-963.

[8] STRATA-ETAN Expert Working Group. (2002). Benchmarking national research policies: The Impact of RTD on Competitiveness and Employment (IRCE). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission Directorate General Research.

[9] Smits, R., and Kuhlmann, S. (2004). The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy. International journal of foresight and innovation policy, 1(1/2), 4-32.

[10] Wieczorek, A. J., and Hekkert, M. P. (2012). Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars. Science and Public Policy, 39(1), 74-87.

[11] Tonurist, P., and Karo, E. (2016). State Owned Enterprises As Instruments Of Innovation Policy. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 87(4), 1-26.

[12] Ghazinoori, S. S., Bamdad Soofi, J., and Radaei, N. (2017). A Framework for Selecting Financing Instruments Based on Knowledge-Based Firms Clustering. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 9(2), 13-30. {In Persian}.

[13] Ghazinoori, S., Sarkisian, A., and Alizadeh, P. (2009). Government & Technological Entrepreneurship: An Introduction To The Protectionist Policies Of The Newly Established Technology-Based Companies. Tehran: Center for Education and Industrial Research of Iran. {In Persian}.

[14] Shapira, P., and Youtie, J. (2013). Impact of Technology and Innovation Advisory Services. Manchester, England: Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester. Retrieved from: http://www.innovation-policy.org.uk/share/18_Technology-Innovation-Advisory-Services-Final.pdf.

[15] Egmond, C., Jonkers, R., and Kok, G. (2006). One size fits all? Policy instruments should fit the segments of target groups. Energy Policy, 34(18), 3464-3474.

[16] Seidl da Fonseca, R., and Pinheiro-Veloso, A. (2018). The Practice and Future of Financing Science, Technology. Journal of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, 12(2), 6-22.

[17] Khoshnevis, Y., and Jalalian, M. (2011). A Look at Demand-Oriented Policies for the Development of Innovation. Monthly Journal of Nano Technology, 10(9), 42-45. {In Persian}.

[18] Mohseni Kiasari, M., Mohammadi, M., Jafarnejad, A., Garousi Mokhtarzadeh, N., and Asadifard, R. (2017). Classification of Demand-based Innovation Policy Tools Using Meta-synthesis Approach. Innovation Management Journal, 6(2), 109-138. {In Persian}.

[19] Smits, R., Kuhlmann, S., and Shapira, P. (2014). The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy-An International Research Handbook (Translated by Ghazinoori, S. S., and Azadegan-Mehr, M.). Isfahan: Darkhovein. {In Persian}.

[20] Rigby, J. (2016). 12. The impact of pre-commercial procurement on innovation. Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact, 382. Edward Elgar Publishing.

[21] Edler, J. (2016). 10. The impact of policy measures to stimulate private demand for innovation. Handbook of innovation policy impact, 318. Edward Elgar Publishing.

[22] Jooriyan, N., Siavashi, E., Noori, J., and Abbasi, M. (2017). Identifying Demand-Driven Policy Instruments And Locating Instruments In The Stages Of Product Life Cycle. Journal of Technology Development Management, 5(3), 61-82. {In Persian}.

[23] Cunningham, P., & Gök, A. (2016). The impact of innovation policy schemes for collaboration. Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact, 239. Edward Elgar Publishing.

[24] Klerkx, L., and Aarts, N. (2013). The interaction of multiple champions in orchestrating innovation networks: Conflicts and complementarities. Technovation, 33(6-7), 193-210.

[25] Necoechea-Mondragon, H., Pineda-Dominguez, D., Perez-Reveles, L., & Soto-Flores, R. (2017). Critical factors for participation in global innovation networks. Empirical evidence from the Mexican nanotechnology sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 293-312.

[26] Cunningham, P., & Ramlogan, R. (2016). The impact of innovation networks. Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact, 279-317. Edward Elgar Publishing.

[27] Uyarra, E., & Ramlogan, R. (2016). The impact of cluster policy on innovation. Handbook of innovation policy impact, 196-225. Edward Elgar Publishing.

[28] European Commission. (2006). Community Framework for State Aid for Research and Development and Innovation. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Retrieved from:: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/35b27a72-2a59-4448-9985-3b9568acf6e4.

[29] OECD. (2007). OECD Reviews of Regional Innovation: Competitive Regional Clusters. Paris, France: OECD.

[30] Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res. Policy, 35(5), 715-728.

[31] Klerkx, L., and Leeuwis, C. (2009). Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 76(6), 849-860.

[32] Rigby, J., and Ramlogan, R. (2016). The impact and effectiveness of entrepreneurship policy. Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact, 129-160. Edward Elgar Publishing.

[33] Tamasay, C. (2007). Rethinking Technology-Oriented Business Incubators: Developing a Robust Policy Instrument for Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Regional Development?. Growth and Change, 38(3), 460-473.

[34] Williams, H. (2012). Innovation Inducement Prizes: Connecting Research to Policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(3), 752-776.

[35] Gök, A. (2016). 13. The impact of innovation inducement prizes. Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact, 403. Edward Elgar Publishing.

[36] Warnke, P., & Heimeriks, G. (2008). Technology foresight as innovation policy instrument: learning from science and technology studies. In Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (pp. 71-87). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

[37] Georghiou, L. (2008). The Handbook of Technology Foresight. Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar.

[38] European Commission. (2013). Lessons from a Decade of Innovation Policy: What can we learn from TrendChart and Innovation Union Scoreboard. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. Retrieved from: ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/5220/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native.

[39] Blind, K. (2016). 15. The impact of regulation on innovation. Handbook of innovation policy impact, 450. Edward Elgar Publishing.

[40] Blind, K., and Gauch, S. (2009). Research and standardisation in nanotechnology: evidence from Germany. J. Technol. Transf., 34(3): 320-342.