واکاوی عوامل زمینه‌ای شکست سیاست‌های علم، فناوری و نوآوری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار پژوهشکده مطالعات فناوری‌های نوین، سازمان پژوهش‌های علمی و صنعتی ایران، تهران

2 دکترای سیاست‌گذاری علم و فناوری دانشگاه مازندران

چکیده

مقاله حاضر بر اساس این فرض نگارش شده که برخی عوامل شکست سیاست‌های نوآوری فراتر از حوزه نوآوری هستند و به نظام‌های سیاسی محیط این حوزه مربوطند. پس برای درک علل این شکست‌ها باید ساختار نظام‌های سیاسی حاکم را شناخت و بر اساس آن سیاست را ارزیابی کرد. برای این منظور، مقاله با پیوند زدن یک مدل ارزیابی پایه‌ای به الگوهای نظری ساختارهای نظام سیاسی، مدل ارزیابی پیشرفته‌تری می‌سازد که می‌تواند بر اساس نوع ساختار نظام سیاسی، یک سیاست را با توجه به ابعاد تناسب، فرآیند و ارزیابی نماید. لیکن این مدل، یک مدل عمومی و فاقد پشتوانه نظری است که برای ارزیابی سیاست‌های نوآوری به کار می‌رود. به همین جهت، مقاله در مرحله بعدی می‌کوشد مدل پیشرفته‌تری بسازد که بتواند در آن، رابطه مفهومی بین ساختار نظام سیاسی و کارکردهای نظام نوآوری به ویژه کارکرد هدایت تحقیق برقرار سازد و عوامل زمینه‌ای مشارکت‌پذیری سیاسی نظام (جامعه مدنی، بازار و دولت) را شناسایی و آنها را در پویایی تعامل ساختار و کارکردهای نظام نوآوری در قالب موتورهای رشد و یا انحطاط نوآوری منعکس نماید. این مدل همچنین باید نشان دهد که ضعف و یا غیبت اجزاء ساختاری کارکرد هدایت تحقیق مستقیماً به ساختار نظام‌های سیاسی محیط بر نظام‌های نوآوری مرتبط هستند. مقاله در پایان مدل تلفیقی-کارکردی مذکور را در مطالعه موردی ارزیابی سیاست‌های توسعه سوخت‌های زیستی به کار می‌بندد.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Exploring the Underlying Factors of Innovation Policy Failure

نویسندگان [English]

  • Tahereh Miremadi 1
  • Zohreh Rahimi Rad 2
1 Associate Professor of IROST, Tehran, Iran
2 Ph.D at Science and Technology Policy, Mazandaran University, Iran
چکیده [English]

This paper holds this conviction that some failures of innovation policy can be attributed to the political context hosting that innovation system. Accordingly, to understand the root causes of these failures, researchers have to step out of the innovation system approaches and study the political system structure and evaluate the policies based on this study. The paper, then, build an eclectic model by bridging between the stakeholder model of public policy evaluation and the three archetypes of political system structure. The paper argues that the new and eclectic model can be applied to evaluate the general public policies by its process, content and the political according to MCconnel’s theory. However, this model has some shortcomings because it is not backed by innovation theories. That is why, in the second phase, another and more developed model; the eclectic –functional model was built based on the components of innovation system, especially the function 4, the guidance of the research. It shows how the imbalance of political system structure, among the civil society and market and the State reflects on the dynamism of interactions among the structure and functional components of an innovation system and gridlocks the related innovation policies. The paper concludes with a case study on biofuel policy failure in Iran.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Policy evaluation
  • System Failure
  • Policy Failure
  • The Structure of Political System
  • Democracy
  • Charismatic State
  • Patrimonalism
[1] Allard, G., Martinez, C. A., & Williams, C. (2012). Political instability, pro-business market reforms and their impacts on national systems of innovation. Research Policy, 41(3), 638-651.
[2] Švarc, J. (2006). Socio-political factors and the failure of innovation policy in Croatia as a country in transition. Research Policy, 35(1), 144-159.
[3] Lundvall, B. Å., Intarakumnerd, P., Vang, J., Lundvall, B., Intarakumnerd, P., & Vang, J. (2006). Asia’s innovation systems in transition: An introduction. Asia’s innovation system in transition, 1-20.
[4] Broberg, J. C., McKelvie, A., Short, J. C., Ketchen Jr, D. J., & Wan, W. P. (2013). Political institutional structure influences on innovative activity. Journal of business research, 66(12), 2574-2580.
[5] Farazkish, M., & Dastranj, N. (2019). Selecting and Applying Science, Technology and Innovation Evaluation Indices. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 11(2), 579-598. {In Persian}.
[6] Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2009). 'Mode 3' and 'Quadruple Helix': toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International journal of technology management, 46(3-4), 201-234.
[7] Easton, D. (1990). The analysis of political structure. Routledge.
[8] Machiavelli, N. (2008). The prince. Hackett Publishing.
[9] De Montesquieu, C. (1989). Montesquieu: The spirit of the laws. Cambridge University Press.
[10] Rousseau, J. J. (1762). The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right. Ware: Wordsworth Editions, First published.
[11] Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol. 1). Univ of California Press.
[12] McConnell, A. (2010). Policy success, policy failure and grey areas in-between. Journal of Public Policy, 30(3), 345-362.
[13] Wieczorek, A. J., & 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.
[14] Jacobsson, S., & Bergek, A. (2004). Transforming the energy sector: the evolution of technological systems in renewable energy technology. Industrial and corporate change, 13(5), 815-849.
[15] Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological forecasting and social change, 74(4), 413-432.
[16] Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., & Rickne, A. (2008). Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research policy, 37(3), 407-429.
[17] Suurs, R. A. (2009). Motors of sustainable innovation: Towards a theory on the dynamics of technological innovation systems. Utrecht University.
[18] Turner, J. A., Klerkx, L., Rijswijk, K., Williams, T., & Barnard, T. (2016). Systemic problems affecting co-innovation in the New Zealand Agricultural Innovation System: Identification of blocking mechanisms and underlying institutional logics. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 76, 99-112.
[19] Negro, S. O., Alkemade, F., & Hekkert, M. P. (2012). Why does renewable energy diffuse so slowly? A review of innovation system problems. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 16(6), 3836-3846.
[20] Sisko Patana, A., Pihlajamaa, M., Polvinen, K., Carleton, T., & Kanto, L. (2013). Inducement and blocking mechanisms in the Finnish life sciences innovation system. Foresight, 15(6), 428-445.
[21] Chaminade, C., & Esquist, C. (2010). Rationales for public policy intervention in the innovation process: Systems of innovation approach. Chapters.
[22] Smith, K. (2000). Innovation as a systemic phenomenon: rethinking the role of policy. Enterprise and innovation management studies, 1(1), 73-102.
[23] Nill, J., & Kemp, R. (2009). Evolutionary approaches for sustainable innovation policies: From niche to paradigm?. Research policy, 38(4), 668-680.
[24] Bergek, A., Hekkert, M., Jacobsson, S., Markard, J., Sandén, B., & Truffer, B. (2015). Technological innovation systems in contexts: Conceptualizing contextual structures and interaction dynamics. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 16, 51-64.
[25] Chaminade, C., & Edquist, C. (2006). From theory to practice: the use of the systems of innovation approach in innovation policy. Innovation, Science, and Institutional Change A Research Handbook, 141-163.
[26] Wesseling, J. H., & Van der Vooren, A. (2017). Lock-in of mature innovation systems: the transformation toward clean concrete in the Netherlands. Journal of cleaner production, 155, 114-124.
[27] Kriechbaum, M., Brent, A. C., & Posch, A. (2018). Interaction patterns of systemic problems in distributed energy technology diffusion: a case study of photovoltaics in the Western Cape province of South Africa. Technology analysis & strategic management, 30(12), 1422-1436.
[28] Fevolden, A. M., & Klitkou, A. (2017). A fuel too far? Technology, innovation, and transition in failed biofuel development in Norway. Energy research & social science, 23, 125-135.
[29] Miremadi, T., and Rahimirard, Z. (2016). Identification of System Failures in the Analysis of the Biofuel Technological Innovative System in Iran. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 8(1), 27-41. {In Persian}.
[30] Headquarters of the country's comprehensive scientific map. (2013). National Document for the Knowledge-based Development of Renewable Energies. {In Persian}.
[31] New Technologies studies Group. (2017). Study of the status of renewable bioenergy in Iran and the world. Islamic Republic of Iran Islamic Research Center. {In Persian}.
[32] Department of Energy, Industry and Mines Studies. (2012). Evaluating Dimensions of Methanol Replacement with MTBE in Petrol consumption. Islamic Republic of Iran Islamic Research Center. {In Persian}.
[33] Rahimnejad, M. (1397). Assessing the status of the country in the field of bioethanol, opportunities and challenges ahead. Iranian Biotechnology, 1(3), 42-46. {In Persian}.
[34] Deputy of Electricity and Energy Affairs. (2011). Energy Balance Sheet 2010. {In Persian}.
[35] Miremadi, T. (2012). The vicious circles of underdevelopment and their impacts on the national innovation system in Iran. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 5(1), 17-30.{In Persian}.