Innovation systems and policy design: the European experience

Manjon, Juan Vicente Garcia; Merino, Ma Elena Romero

doi:10.5172/impp.2012.629

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mostly, systemic innovation initiatives led by government have a geographically defined scope, as the emphasis is on regional competitiveness (Cooke et al, 1998; Li & Zhong, 2011), with different continents (e.g., Manjón & Romero Merino, 2012), countries (e.g., Laranja, 2012) or sub‐national regions (e.g., Cook et al, 1997; Doloreux, 2004) seeking to improve their own innovation capacity and ultimately the employment, wealth prospects and quality of life of their citizens. Some of the literature points to the weaknesses in national or regional innovation systems due to the absence of government support (Turner et al, 2016), private sector engagement (de Laurentis, 2006) or the inadequacies of incentives to innovate (Wilts et al, 2011).…”

Section: Meanings Of Systemic Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systems perspective on systemic innovation

Midgley

Lindhult

2021

Syst Res Behav Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term ‘systemic innovation’ is increasing in use, but there is no consensus on its meaning: five understandings of the term can be identified, each based on a different view of what the word ‘systemic’ should refer to. The first understanding focuses on technologies, where the innovation in focus is synergistically integrated with other complementary innovations, going beyond the boundaries of a single organization. Therefore, ‘systemic’ refers to technological innovations interacting in a larger product system. A second use of the term refers to the development of policies and governance at a local, regional or national scale to create an enabling environment for innovation systems. Here, ‘systemic’ means recognition that innovation systems can be enabled and/or constrained by a meta‐level policy system. The third use of the term says that an innovation is ‘systemic’ when its purpose is to change societal laws and norms to place new enablers and constraints on innovation in the interests of ecological sustainability. What makes this systemic is acknowledgement of the existence of nested systems: innovation systems are parts of economic systems, which are parts of societal systems, and all societies exist on a single planetary ecosystem. The fourth use focuses on collaboration in innovation networks with multiple actors. This has evolved from the first understanding of systemic innovation, but the critical difference is the primary focus on people and processes rather than technological products. The word ‘systemic’ refers to the interdependency of actors in a business or community context, leading to a need to cocreate value and innovate in concert or through coevolutionary dynamics. The fifth use of the term ‘systemic innovation’ concerns how people engage in a process to support systemic thinking and action, and it is primarily this process, and the thinking and action it gives rise to, that is seen as systemic, rather than the innovation system that they exist within or are trying to create. It is this fifth understanding that accords with most of the literature on systems thinking published over the last 50 years. The current paper offers a contemporary perspective on what systems thinkers mean by ‘systemic’, and this not only enables us to provide a redefinition of ‘systemic innovation’, but it also helps to show how all four previous forms of innovation that have been described as systemic can be enhanced by the practice of systems thinking.

show abstract

Section: Meanings Of Systemic Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systems perspective on systemic innovation

Midgley

Lindhult

2021

Syst Res Behav Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Let us consider the solving problems just outlined. It is worth noting that the key policy challenges and policy tools tailored to liquidate and mitigate market failure and NIS dysfunctions (Manjуn & Merino, 2012) are bound to the vertical and horizontal decomposition, which has been above introduced above. Besides, the stages of development such as investment-driven and innovation-driven ones are taken into account.…”

Section: Building Of Effective Innovation Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Methodology of National Innovation System Analysis

Golichenko

2015

Public Affairs and Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many efforts have been made in developing the National Innovation System (NIS) concept. However, there are the limitations, which do not make it operable and effective in practice. This investigation attempts to eliminate some limitations of the approach. The NIS is presented as three interrelated macro blocs: business environment, environment producing new knowledge, and knowledge transfer mechanism. The principles of performance and efficiency measuring of NIS are proposed. The system structure-object and functional approaches to NIS performance and efficiency are applied. The former is used for decomposition of NIS objects of high aggregation level. The latter is available for analysis of NIS efficiency and its factors. The methods allow the estimation of the NIS component by component and identification of the cause-effect chains of factor impacts on its elements. The key policy tools tailored to liquidate and mitigate market failure and NIS dysfunctions are proposed.

show abstract

Innovation systems and policy design: the European experience

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

A systems perspective on systemic innovation

A systems perspective on systemic innovation

The Methodology of National Innovation System Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About