Coordination‐Mix: The Hidden Face ofSTIPolicy

Abstract

This paper sheds light on the policy coordination concept and explores its implications for science, technology, and innovation (STI) policies at the regional level. In particular it analyzes whether systemic and complex STI policies entail a larger and more complex need for coordination. We contribute to the literature by developing a conceptual framework that brings together insights from institutional and public policy theories with concepts from STI policy and regional innovation systems. This model is evidenced in the Basque Country (Spain). The paper introduces the concept of “coordination‐mix,” which is defined as the combination of mechanisms that respond to the coordination failures that are derived from a complex policy setting where multiple instruments from different domains, levels, and actors coexist. It also complements the literature with a third policy dimension, the multi‐layer, which adds to the multi‐level and policy‐mix dimensions already established in the STI policy realm.

The Role of Institutions and Capital in Intersectoral Collaboration: Infection and Immunity Research and Development Collaboration in Vancouver

“…What remains unique here is my integration of these concepts into an empirical study that shows how the interrelation of capital and institutions influence collaboration decisions within an organizational field. This insight that capital and institutions are interrelated and, combined, influence collaboration can be generalized to the national (Chen, ) and international (Sergi, Parker, & Zuckerman, ) level and beyond biomedicine to the public sector (Magro, Navarro, & Zabala‐Iturriagagiotia, ).…”

Understanding regional innovation policy dynamics: Actors, agency and learning

“…Instead, innovation policy studies often fall into one or more traps (Flanagan and Uyarra, 2016): treating policy as if it were the province of 'the' policy maker, assuming away the messy reality of multi-level, multi-actor governance (Magro et al, 2014;Mastroeni et al, 2013) and viewing the policy maker as an actor whose role is largely to translate theoretical rationales into action; downplaying the agency of other actors in relation to the shaping of policy and outcomes, and offering an impoverished view of policy learning; offering a superficial analysis of policy 'instruments' as discrete, stable and straightforwardly implemented tools, and paying too little attention to policy dynamics and policy path dependencies as they unfold over time; and treating tensions, trade-offs and interactions between policies as something that can simply be designed away by 'better' coordination.…”

La Política de Compra Pública como Estímulo a la Innovación y el Emprendimiento

“…Con esta contribución sobre la CPE, nuestra intención es la de proporcionar un marco conceptual y metodológico para un campo de investigación que ha permanecido inexplorado. Por lo tanto, se requiere más investigación para profundizar en las implicaciones organizativas que la estrategia de separación coordinada puede tener para los organismos públicos encargados de los procesos de compra pública y las políticas de industriales y de innovación (Magro et al, 2014).…”