Priority Setting in STI Policy in Historical

Perspective

Wolfgang PoltJoanneum Research

wolfgang.polt@joanneum.at

OECD-TIP Policy Roundtable on STI Governance

Vienna 18.02.2010

Studies on Priority Setting in STI Policy Polt, W., Gassler, H., Schindler, J., Weber, M.

Mahroum, S. Kubeczko, K., Keenan, M. (2004): Priorities in Science and Technology Policy – An International Comparison. Project Report.

Gassler, H., Polt, W., Rammer, C. (2006): Priority setting in research and technology policy – an analysis of paradigm changes in the post-war period [in German], in: Austrian Journal for Political Sciences [ÖZPW] 1/2006, pp 7-23

Gassler, H., Polt, W., Rammer, C. (2008): Priority setting in technology policy – historical developments and recent trends. In: Nauwelaeres, C., Wintjens, R. (Eds.): Innovation Policy in Europe. Measurement and Strategy. Edward Elgar Publishers, pp 203-224

Background

Priority setting (in STI policy): conscious and deliberate selection of certain activities, actors, policies or policy instruments at the expense of others with an impact on resource allocation.

Thematic (addressing specific fields of S&T, societal goals and missions, etc.)

Functional/Generic (addressing generic aspects of the Innovation System, e.g. establishment of new firms, collaboration between industry and science etc.)

Concepts & Definitions

Historical Paradigms in Priority Setting

Source: Gassler, Polt, Rammer (2008)

Technology Policy Paradigm: ‘Old’ Mission-Oriented Approach

Thematic dimension

Emphasis on ‘large-scale’ technologies (i.e. defence, energy, transport etc.)

Legitimization/Rationale

Production of ‘public’ or ‘meritoric’ goods

Institutional Dimension / Actors

Top down definition of thematic priorities

Establishing of specialised public R&D organisations

Technology Policy Paradigm: Industrial policy approach (key/strategic technologies)Thematic dimension

In addition to ‘old strategic sectors’: ICT; Biotechnology; New Materials; Nanotechnology

Legitimization/Rationale

Fostering competitiveness Emphasis on static and dynamic

economies of scale and specific market failures, esp.spillovers from ‘generic’ technologies

Institutional Dimension / Actors

Emphasis on planning Techn. forecasting/roadmapping Technology assessment National Technology Programs

Technology Policy Paradigm: Systemic approach

Thematic dimension

Emphasis on ‘functional’ aspects of the innovation system (cooperation; framework conditions, regulation etc.)

Legitimization/Rationale

“Systemic failures”

Institutional Dimension / Actors

Increasing number of actors involved in STI policy and priority setting

Agencies emerge as important players in STI policy

Technology Policy Paradigm: ‘New’ Mission-Oriented ApproachThematic dimension

Sustainable Development; Climate Change, Information & Knowledge Society; Demographic Change and Aging; Health and new deseases Safety and Security Food supply

Legitimization/Rationale

Orientation towards societal needs and challenges

Institutional Dimension / Actors

Involvement of different societal groups and stakeholders

horizontal coordination of hitherto separated policy areas

large number of actors

Types of priorities (i) thematic (ii) functional/generic

Actors and actor relations in priority setting role and position of different priority setting actors

Nature of the priority setting process, e.g.: - top-down/expert-based

vs. bottom-up/participatory- degree of formalization - mechanisms for implementation and

evaluation)

Dimensions of the PS process

Multitude of actors (as a function of size, development and complexity of the innovation and policy systems):

Federal and regional governments International bodies S&T policy councils & advisory bodies Research councils and funding agencies Research performers (enterprises, PROs,

universities, ...)

Actors in Priority Setting

Government White Papers /Strategies Budget plans & allocations Thematic STI Programmes Government Procurement Institutional Profiling & Specialisation Performance Based Contracting Clusters/Technology Platforms Strategic Research Agendas

Means of Priority Setting

Technology planning and forecasting, as well as ‚Constructive TA‘ (60s, 70s)

Technology Foresight and Roadmapping (80s, 90s)

Priority setting as an outcome of broader ‚Strategic Policy Intelligence‘ (Foresight, Monitoring, Evaluation, Assessment ...)

Trend towards „expertise-supported consultation mechanisms“

Trend towards programmes (instead of institutions) as means of priority setting

Mechanisms to Support Priority Setting

Thanks for listening Growing complexity with increasing

number of actors: science/research councils, funding agencies, research actors (universities, public research labs)

Priority setting processes have become more decentralised – a larger number of actors have built up related capacities and been given related responsibilities

Main Trends in Priority Setting

Thanks for listening Explicit strategy formulation: more

widespread in the 90s, tendency to make regular strategy formulation complusory (‚New Public Management‘)

Path-dependency in innovations systems limits the degrees of freedom for choices between priorities (dedicated / sector / technology specific institutions, departmental split of R&D) ‚implicit thematic priorities‘

Main Trends in Priority Setting

Thanks for listening Establish a sound policy rationale Avoid institutional lock-in (e.g. in too

narrowly specialised institutions) Avoid too narrow top-down definition of

thematic priorities (explicit or implicit)

Focus on broad societal missions instead

Focus rather on ‚functional‘ priorities of the innovation system

Challenges for Priority Setting

Thanks for listening Use primarily instruments with fixed life-

length as means to establish priorities

Ensure coherence of PS in an increasingly complex landscape of actors

Embed priority setting in a larger concept of STI policy strategy formulation, using all approaches of ‚strategic policy intelligence‘ (foresight, monitoring, evaluation, assessment, benchmarking..)

Challenges for Priority Setting

If too broard: almost non-discriminatory (e.g. ICT, Biotech, Nanotech, …)

If too narrow: risk of ‚capture‘ and information asymmetry (‚embedded systems in household appliances‘…)

Most of the concepts brought forward to guide thematic priority setting lack rigor and rationale

(Most) suitable rationales for priority setting: production of public goods ‚public missions‘

Challenges for Priority Setting for Specfic Technologies

A Model for Co-Existence of Policy Rationales for Priority Setting

General R&D support for private

industry( e.g. tax credit for R&D, bottom-up direct

funding)

Support for ‘functional’ priorities

(collaboration, technology transfer, spin-offs etc)

Support for selected technologies / fields

(missions, public goods)

Thank you for your attention !

Share of Public R&D support in BERD (2004)

Source: OECD-MSTI; National source; Estimates by ZEW

Conceptual underpinning of technology-centered PS

Critical

Key

Emerging

Pathbreaking

Infrastructural

Generic

General Purpose

Disruptive

„ ..most of these lists of technologies remain at a level which makes them only a poor guide for policy...“ Richard Branscomb (1994)

Lists of Technologies