Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISIStrategic and conceptual development of science, technology and innovation policies
Science, technology and innovation policy (STI policy) has undergone several fundamental transformations over the past few decades — in terms of its political goals, the reasons for government interventions, basic conceptual and theoretical assumptions, and the associated instruments.
This article in the anthology outlines the key areas of development in STI policy in OECD countries since the Second World War and considers the major factors that have shaped and advanced the changes seen in this policy field. The concept of policy paradigms is applied as an analytical framework, which assigns a key role to ideas, knowledge and discourse in the processes that bring about a shift in policy. Of particular interest are how the defining scientific foundations interact with advances in knowledge; the dominant rationales behind STI policy interventions; and the changing role of government and of applied policy instruments.
In the first few decades after the Second World War, STI policy focused on establishing scientific systems, promoting the creation of (fundamental) knowledge and addressing market failures. The intellectual and conceptual foundation of this policy paradigm was primarily characterized by what was at the time the mainstream theory of welfare economics and a largely linear understanding of the innovation process.
It was always about the “innovation system”
STI policy underwent a gradual realignment over the course of the 1970s. The end of the long growth phase and more intense global competition led to the basic assumptions about the nature of the innovation process being revised and, ultimately, to the rise of the systems approach within STI policy. The 1972 founding document of Fraunhofer ISI even referred to the “innovation system”.
The development of a more complex, non-linear understanding of innovation and of the outstanding role of interaction processes between heterogeneous stakeholders in the innovation system had an especially big impact. Consequently, according to this understanding, the main job of STI policy was to improve the innovation system.
Although economic goals such as competitiveness and growth essentially justified government interventions in the first two STI policy paradigms, from the 2000s on, these mainly economic rationales were increasingly supplemented and superseded by the aim of mobilizing knowledge, technology and innovation to address societal challenges, for instance climate change. Questions about the directionality of research and innovation, and the growing importance of focusing on society’s needs, are reflected in new policy approaches such as mission-oriented or transformative innovation policy.
The key task for scientific policy consulting
Looking at the big picture, it is clear that a policy paradigm in the field of STI policy is not completely replaced by the next; rather, fundamental rationales and institutional structures coexist and overlap. This policy layering results in positive complementarities, but also to what can sometimes be contradictory intervention logics and policy mixes. Against this backdrop, coming up with contributions for developing a coherent STI policy framework is set to be a key task for scientific policy consulting in future.
