Policy and Governance of Science, Technology, and Innovation - Social Inclusion and Sustainable Development in Latin América [First ed.] 9783030808310, 9783030808327

Citation preview

PALGRAVE STUDIES IN DEMOCRACY, INNOVATION, AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP FOR GROWTH SERIES EDITOR: ELIAS G. CARAYANNIS

Policy and Governance of Science, Technology, and Innovation Social Inclusion and Sustainable Development in Latin América Edited by Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros · Luis Antonio Orozco · Jaime Humberto Sierra-González · Isabel Bortagaray · Javier García-Estévez

Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth

Series Editor Elias G. Carayannis, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

The central theme of this series is to explore why some areas grow and others stagnate, and to measure the effects and implications in a trans-disciplinary context that takes both historical evolution and geographical location into account. In other words, when, how and why does the nature and dynamics of a political regime inform and shape the drivers of growth and especially innovation and entrepreneurship? In this socio-economic and socio-technical context, how could we best achieve growth, financially and environmentally? This series aims to address such issues as: • How does technological advance occur, and what are the strategic processes and institutions involved? • How are new businesses created? To what extent is intellectual property protected? • Which cultural characteristics serve to promote or impede innovation? In what ways is wealth distributed or concentrated? These are among the key questions framing policy and strategic decision-making at firm, industry, national, and regional levels. A primary feature of the series is to consider the dynamics of innovation and entrepreneurship in the context of globalization, with particular respect to emerging markets, such as China, India, Russia, and Latin America. (For example, what are the implications of China’s rapid transition from providing low-cost manufacturing and services to becoming an innovation powerhouse? How do the perspectives of history and geography explain this phenomenon?) Contributions from researchers in a wide variety of fields will connect and relate the relationships and inter-dependencies among (1) Innovation, (2) Political Regime, and (3) Economic and Social Development. We will consider whether innovation is demonstrated differently across sectors (e.g., health, education, technology) and disciplines (e.g., social sciences, physical sciences), with an emphasis on discovering emerging patterns, factors, triggers, catalysts, and accelerators to innovation, and their impact on future research, practice, and policy. This series will delve into what are the sustainable and sufficient growth mechanisms for the foreseeable future for developed, knowledge-based economies and societies (such as the EU and the US) in the context of multiple, concurrent and interconnected “tipping-point” effects with short (MENA) as well as long (China, India) term effects from a geo-strategic, geo-economic, geo-political and geo-technological set of perspectives. This conceptualization lies at the heart of the series, and offers to explore the correlation between democracy, innovation and growth.

More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14635

Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros · Luis Antonio Orozco · Jaime Humberto Sierra-González · Isabel Bortagaray · Javier García-Estévez Editors

Policy and Governance of Science, Technology, and Innovation Social Inclusion and Sustainable Development in Latin América

Editors Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros University of Twente Enschede, The Netherlands

Luis Antonio Orozco Universidad Externado de Colombia Bogota, Colombia

Jaime Humberto Sierra-González Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Bogota, Colombia

Isabel Bortagaray Universidad de la República Montevideo, Uruguay

Javier García-Estévez Universidad de Los Andes Bogota, Colombia

ISSN 2662-3641 ISSN 2662-365X (electronic) Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth ISBN 978-3-030-80831-0 ISBN 978-3-030-80832-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80832-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

1

Policy and Governance of Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable and Inclusive Development in Latin America Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros, Isabel Bortagaray, Jaime Humberto Sierra-González, Javier García-Estévez, and Luis Antonio Orozco

Part I 2

3

4

1

Innovation Policy

Toward a Typology of Public Innovation. Eccentric, Discrete, Flat and Transformative Innovation Gustavo Valdivieso, Laura Uribe Gómez, and Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros Mission-Oriented Innovation Policies: An Approach to Two Colombian Cases Iván D. Hernández, Juan Gonzalo Castellanos M, Andrés Gómez-León, Helga Patricia Bermeo-Andrade, and Sergio Sosa Bautista Innovation Policies for Inclusive and Sustainable Development: Insights from the Central American Region Isabel Bortagaray and Carlos Aguirre-Bastos

15

35

55

v

vi

5

6

7

CONTENTS

Towards a Regional Policy: Transformative Innovation in Colombia Nicolás Garzón Rodríguez and Janaina Pamplona da Costa Transformative Innovation Policy in Emerging Economies: What Does It Entail? Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros, Juan Pablo Centeno, Ernesto Andrade-Sastoque, and Mario A. Pinzón-Camargo A Study of Innovation Policies and Governance Structures in Emerging Economies Under the Path-Dependence Framework. The Case of Colombia Mario A. Pinzón-Camargo and Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros

81

105

147

Part II STI Governance 8

9

10

11

Operational Innovation Policies in Emerging Economies: A Social Network Analysis of the Royalties Fund for Innovation in Colombia Juan Pablo Centeno Regional Diversification, Technological Trajectories and Policy Approaches. The Case of Argentina’s Satellite Industry Eliana Ángela Fernández Structure and Operation of the National Policy Councils for Science, Technology and Innovation: The Cases of Chile and Spain Rodrigo A. Cevallos and Carlos Merino Moreno Adequacy of Governance of Science, Technology and Innovation in Developing Countries: The Colombian Case Iván Montenegro-Trujillo

193

233

259

285

CONTENTS

12

Innovation Financing: A Proposal to Strengthen the Colombian Setting Jaime Humberto Sierra-González

Index

vii

311

329

Notes on Contributors

Carlos Aguirre-Bastos works at the Science and Technology Management, Secretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. Carlos does research in Qualitative and Multi-method Research, Public Policy and Information Technology and Politics. Their current project is ‘Science and Innovation for Inclusive Development’. Ernesto Andrade-Sastoque is Ph.D. Candidate based at the Science, Technology and Policy Studies Department of the University of Twente, The Netherlands. Graduated as M.Sc. in Interdisciplinary Development Studies, B.Sc. in Anthropology and minor in Law. More than ten years working on extractive activities and STS. Recently working on sociotechnical imaginaries and innovation governance with a focus on social and environmental transformations. Sergio Sosa Bautista is Economist of the University of Ibagué, Junior Researcher, YMCA Volunteer, and Current Student in the Bootcamp Programáte to be a full-stack developer. Helga Patricia Bermeo-Andrade is Industrial Engineer with a Ph.D. in Engineering and Innovation Projects. Lecturer at the University of Ibague and Senior Researcher in Colciencias’ Scienti System (Colombia). Topics of study: Technology and innovation management, Logistics and Supply chain management.

ix

x

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Isabel Bortagaray sociologist holds a Ph.D. in Public Policy, with a focus on Science, Technology and Innovation Policy from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Professor at the University of the Republic in Uruguay. Honorary Research Fellow at the Center for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII), of the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa. Juan Gonzalo Castellanos M is Electronics Engineer—Universidad Fco. José de Caldas-Bogotá. DHSS Health Technology Specialist London-England. Executive Director of the Andean Foundation for Technological and Social Development TECNOS. Consultantcoordinator of studies on regional development based on knowledge (Regional Authorities in Colombia). Consultant-coordinator of studies on technological development sectors: agroindustry, manufacturing and services (MADR-MICT-MINTIC). Field manager and representative in Colombia for the consulting company Pluralité-Canada. UNIDO Expert National Program: Capital Goods Colombia. Colciencias Advisor, Industrial Technological Development and Quality: ElectronicsTelecommunications—Informatics. Program Consultant expert United Nations, Physical Resources in Health WHO-PAHO—El Salvador— Central America. Postgraduate professor, Universidad Javeriana: Institutionalism and STI policy. EAN University graduate professor: Innovation in SMEs, Technology Transfer. Researcher at the Autonomous University of Colombia: Innovation and Productivity EAN University Researcher: Innovation in Business Models. Juan Pablo Centeno is Master in Government and Public Policy, bachelor degree in Government and International Relations. Researcher on science, technology and innovation policy and governance at Centro de Investigaciones y Proyectos Especiales—CIPE, Externado de Colombia University, Bogotá (Colombia). Rodrigo A. Cevallos is Ph.D. Student in Economics and Management (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid—UAM), Master in Social Sciences specialisation in Sociology (Universidad de Chile), Licentiate in Economic and Managerial Sciences minor in Political Science (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile). Practitioner, researcher and consultant in science, technology and innovation management and policy.

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

xi

Janaina Pamplona da Costa is an Assistant Professor/Lecturer at the Department of Science and Technology Policy (DPCT), State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil. Ph.D. in Science and Policy Technology Studies at SPRU/University of Sussex, UK. Eliana Ángela Fernández is a Ph.D. Candidate from CONICET at the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina. She is an industrial engineer who works as a researcher at CEUR (Centro de Estudios Urbanos y Regionales). At present, she studies the dynamics of technological change and economic geography in electronics and aerospace industries. Javier García-Estévez is an Associate Professor in planning and territorial development at the Interdisciplinary Centre of Development Studies at the University of Los Andes, Colombia. Economist from the Industrial University of Santander (Colombia) and Ms and Ph.D. in economics from the University of Barcelona (Spain). He is member of the Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium led by the University of Sussex’s Science Policy Research (SPRU) and contributes to the ‘Regional Development Index—Latin America’ Project, in collaboration with researchers from the Autonomous University of Chile, the Inter-American Development Bank and the University of the Republic of Uruguay. Laura Uribe Gómez is Professional in Government and International Relations, Externado University. Sector analyst for education, assess the indicators performance and monitor the implementation of the Peace Agreements and Sustainable Development Goals at the National Planning Department. Andrés Gómez-Leon is Economist and Master’s Degree in Economics with emphasis in public management from the National University of Colombia. 17 years of university experience in teaching, research, consulting and administrative management in universities in the country. Evaluator and member of editorial committees of national journals. Advisor to ICFES Colombian institute for the promotion of higher education as a peer evaluator of the economic analysis module of the Saber PRO test in economics and consultant to the IDB Inter-American Development Bank on issues of social innovation. His research focused on sports economics, economics of happiness, economics and cinema, job satisfaction, social innovation in Latin America, macroeconomics and public finance, microeconomics and consumer behaviour, labour market,

xii

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

the field and training of economists, economics education for noneconomists, social security in Colombia, new political economy and job satisfaction. Coordinator of the presentation of qualified registrations and accreditation of economics programs before the MEN. Member of the Board of Directors of the Association of Economists of the National University. Professor, researcher and advisor at the CUN, EAN and Rosario universities in Bogotá Colombia. Iván D. Hernández is Professor and Researcher at the University of Ibagué, Colombia. Economist, with two Master’s degrees in Economics from the National University of Colombia and Warwick University in the United Kingdom (UK), and a Ph.D. in Economics of Innovation from the University of Manchester, UK. Carlos Merino Moreno is Ph.D. in Business Organization (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid—UAM), Business Management Degree and Economic and Managerial Sciences Diploma (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid), Professor in Business Administration at UAM, MBA Coordinator (UAM), Senior Consultant ICA2 Innovación y Tecnología, Research lines about intangible assets, knowledge management, innovation and strategic management. Iván Montenegro-Trujillo is Industrial Engineer, Magister in Political Science. Senior Consultant and Researcher in public policy of science, technology and innovation, and of productive development and competitiveness formulation, governance, institutionality, impact evaluation, smart specialisation and integration between science and innovation agendas and productive development, International Technological Cooperation and Intellectual property. Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros is Ph.D. in Public Policy of the Georgia Institute of Technology and the Georgia State University, USA. Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences at the University of Twente, The Netherlands, and Director of the Centro de Investigaciones y Proyectos Especiales—CIPE at the Faculty of Finance, Government and International Relations at the Universidad Externado de Colombia in Bogotá. Luis Antonio Orozco is Ph.D. in management at Universidad de los Andes and Business Administrator at Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

xiii

Full Professor and Researcher at School of Management at Universidad Externado de Colombia and Senior Researcher at Colombian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Member at the editorial board of the Journal of Management History and member at the Scientific Committee at the International Society of Scientometrics and Informetrics. Mario A. Pinzón-Camargo is graduated as M.A. in Public Policy of the Universidad Nacional de Colombia (UN) and M.A. in Economics and Law of the Universidad Externado de Colombia (UEC). He is Titular Professor at Universidad Externado de Colombia and Ph.D. candidate at Twente University, The Netherlands. Nicolás Garzón Rodríguez is Master student in Science and Technology Policy, State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Brazil. Researcher of Laboratory in Public Policy, Geography of Innovation and Governance (LABGOING) at UNICAMP. Jaime Humberto Sierra-González is an Associate Professor at the Business Department, School of Business and Economics—Pontificia Universidad Javeriana (Col). Ph.D. in Business and Management, The University of Manchester (UK); Master in Economics of the Internationalisation of Business and Finance, Università di Roma “Tor Vergata”, Rome (Ita); Master in Economics, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana; Diploma in International Relations, Academia Diplomática (Col); BA in Education, Universidad Distrital (Col). Professor at the Master in Economics, Master in Strategy, Innovation and Competitiveness, Diploma in Technology Management and the Diploma in Management of Social and Solidarity Enterprises at PUJ. Gustavo Valdivieso is Ph.D. (c) Governance of Science, Technology and Innovation, University of Twente (the Netherlands). Ph.D. (c) Political Studies, Universidad Externado de Colombia (Colombia). Advanced Project Manager, Stanford University-IPS (USA). M.A Government and Public Policy, Universidad Externado de Colombia.

List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2 Fig. 7.3 Fig. 8.1

Fig. 8.2

Fig. 8.3

Fig. 8.4

NOFP program as seen from the MOP scheme Source adapted from Mazzucato (2018) MTME Program as seen from the MOP scheme Source adapted from Mazzucato (2018) Phases in a path-dependence process (Source Based on Sydowet al. (2009)) Investment in STI’s activities as a percentage of Colombia’s GDP (Source OCyT (2017)) Role assigned to innovation in Colombia in the period 1990–2018 (2009 Source Based on Sydowet al. ()) Number and value of contracts (2012–2018) (N = 5842) (Source Monitoring of the royalties general system database) Actors in the operational policy network by typology (N = 1648) (Source Monitoring of the royalties general system database) Average number of ties of each type of actor in the operational policy network (Source Monitoring of the royalties general system database) Operational policy network within the royalties fund for STI in Colombia 2012–2018 (Source Monitoring of the royalties general system database)

46 47 156 164 176

207

210

211

214

xv

xvi

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 8.5

Fig. 8.6

Fig. 9.1 Fig. 9.2 Fig. 9.3 Fig. 11.1 Fig. 11.2 Fig. 12.1

Graph 4.1 Graph 4.2

Actors with betweenness centrality in the operational policy network within the royalties fund for STI in Colombia 2012–2018 (Source Monitoring of the Royalties General System database) Potential systemic intermediaries in the operational policy network (Betweenness centrality vs. Degree centrality) (Source Monitoring of the royalties General system database) Satellite industry’s value chain Characteristics of the old and new space missions (Source Based on Robinson and Mazzucato (2019)) Time line of the national space industry’s main milestones Ideal typical model of Governance (Source Modified from Bell (2002)) National System of Science, Technology and Innovation (Note NP means National Program) Innovation funding sources preferred by Colombian companies (Sierra [2020]) Latin America: distribution of firms by size, 2016 (Source Dini & Stumpo, 2019) Latin America: employment share, 2016 (Source Dini & Stumpo, 2019)

215

216 241 242 244 307 308 327

66 67

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table Table Table Table

4.1 6.1 6.2 6.3

Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Table 7.4

Table 8.1 Table 8.2 Table 8.3

Table 8.4

Types of Public Innovation in Accordance with Novelty and Adoption Brief characterization of the Central American countries Transformational Failures Institutional Entrepreneurs tactics at the SASTI Policy Examples of projects funded by the programs Ideas para el Cambio and A Ciencia Cierta Four self-reinforcing mechanisms Different attempts of giving different roles to STI in the National Development Plans Four self-reinforcing mechanisms in the role assigned to innovation in Colombia Challenges of governance and innovation policies for future roles assigned to innovation in emerging economies General features of the dataset Operational policy network general features Actors with betweenness centrality in the operational policy network within the royalties fund for STI in Colombia 2012–2018 Top 10 other STI actors of the operational policy network within the royalties fund for STI in Colombia 2012–2018 (sorted by degree centrality)

25 56 116 122 124 152 171 173

178 206 210

212

217

xvii

xviii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 8.5

Table 8.6

Table 8.7 Table 8.8

Table Table Table Table

8.9 10.1 10.2 10.3

Table 12.1 Table 12.2 Table 12.3

Top 10 non-STI actors of the operational policy network within the royalties fund for STI in Colombia 2012–2018 (sorted by degree centrality) Top 10 public administration organizations of the operational policy network within the royalties fund for STI in Colombia 2012–2018 (sorted by degree centrality) Top 5 edges with the highest weight, measured on the number of connections between two nodes Top 5 edges with the highest weight, measured on the amount of resources established in each contract between two nodes Policy networks & operational policy networks features Definitions of councils in the literature Comparison of the councilscouncils’ structure Comparison of the councils’ features of coordinative capacity A systemic look at STI funding in Colombia Ranking of problems identified by Colombian innovative companies Main theoretical explanations on innovation funding

218

219 220

221 223 264 269 270 314 316 318

CHAPTER 1

Policy and Governance of Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable and Inclusive Development in Latin America Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros, Isabel Bortagaray, Jaime Humberto Sierra-González, Javier García-Estévez, and Luis Antonio Orozco

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, academic and international policy circles were very active debating about the importance of—and ways for— designing and implementing effective innovation policies for sustainable development and social inclusion across the globe. Consistent with the “paradigm shift” characterizing STI policy and governance in Europe

G. Ordóñez-Matamoros (B) · L. A. Orozco Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia e-mail: [email protected] L. A. Orozco e-mail: [email protected] I. Bortagaray Universidad de La República, Montevideo, Uruguay © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Ordónez-Matamoros et al. (eds.), Policy and Governance of Science, Technology, and Innovation, Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80832-7_1

1

2

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

and the United States since 2010 (see, e.g., STEPS, 2010, Macnaghten et al., 2014), scholars and policymakers in developing countries have also been holding heated debates on the subject (see discussions in the framework of Globelics (http://www.globelics.org/) and LALICS communities (http://www.lalics.org) in the Latin American region, and Kuhlmann & Ordóñez-Matamoros, 2017). The need for an instrumental STI policy for sustainable and inclusive development has arisen from STI policy studies by the scientific community across the globe. The current sanitary global crisis has accelerated the visibility of such necessary role for STI policy. Indeed, pre-COVID-19 growing interest has sought links between development and STI through approaches such as “Grand Challenges,” “Sustainable Development Goals,” “Inclusive Innovation”(Alzugaray et al., 2011; Arocena & Sutz, 2012, 2016; Bortagaray & OrdóñezMatamoros, 2012, Cozzens & Sutz, 2012; Dutrenit & Sutz, 2014; Heeks et al., 2014; Planes-Satorra & Paunov, 2017), Innovation for the “Base of the Pyramid” (Cholez, et al., 2012; Prahalad & Hart, 2002), “Responsible Research and Innovation” and others not so new such as grassroots innovation (Gupta, 1995) and frugal innovation (Bhatti, 2012) whose origins are attributed to the “Global South,” in contexts such as India and Brazil, among others. These approaches represent a diversity of perspectives on how to address social and environmental challenges from the STI stance (e.g., focusing on “the poor” as a new market for multinationals or thinking about generating spaces to foster the creative and endogenous capacities of the same grassroots communities such as small-scale farmers, indigenous knowledge, among others), where these discourses share a concern about the high and growing inequalities in the world, the massive challenges facing all societies concerning social and environmental issues (e.g., global warming), and the hope that the role of knowledge and

J. H. Sierra-González Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia e-mail: [email protected] J. García-Estévez Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia e-mail: [email protected]

1

POLICY AND GOVERNANCE …

3

STI (defined broadly) help to resolve these problems (Cozzens, 2009; Cozzens & Kaplinsky, 2011). One among these emerging perspectives referring to the role of STI policy for sustainable and inclusive development is that of “transformative innovation policy” proposed by the so-called TIP Consortium. It suggests that historical STI policy frameworks have not been adequate to meet these challenges and we need to adjust or complement the ways of understanding and responding to them with new ways of thinking and acting on STI policy (Schot & Steinmueller, 2016). Among the proposals of this new transformative innovation policy framework is the issue of inclusion and the recognition of the importance of supporting niches (e.g., spaces for experimentation in grassroots innovation, social innovation, etc.) that allow to respond to diverse contexts in a manner more adjusted to such environments In this context, a key challenge is to make policies flexible enough to accommodate different perspectives or motivations (also known as “framings”) that may have different initiatives and that involve actors such as social movements and multinational companies (Fressoli et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2016). From the Latin American region, the LALICS Network (http://lal ics.org) has made several statements about the relevance of STI policies concerning the pre-COVID challenges that humanity was experiencing, especially in Latin American and Caribbean countries. This is backed up by the long tradition of the Latin American School of Science and Technology, which since the 1960s concerned itself with inequities related to STI issues and their close links with development, among others (Varsavsky, Vessuri, Sábato, Herrera, etc.). Furthermore, it concerns relevant and participatory research (Fals Borda) that has somehow been reborn recently (Vaccarezza, 2004; Sagasti, 2005; Arond et al., 2011; Crespi & Dutrenit, 2013; Dutrenit & Sutz, 2014; Bortagaray & Gras, 2014). Along such line, the 2017 LALICS Declaration (LALICS, 2014) points out the importance of seeking a “new generation” of STI policies that responds to the challenges of “social inclusion, citizenship, gender equity, climate change and productive development,” among others. This book aims at contributing to the current understanding and development of innovation policy and governance for social inclusion and sustainability in Latin America. The innovation policy section includes five chapters discussing different perspectives of the overarching role of governments in promoting innovation in general, particularly in Colombia.

4

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

Valdivieso, Uribe and Ordonez-Matamoros aim at contributing to a better understanding of the challenges and opportunities related with public innovation as a condition to innovation policy. In so-doing, they propose a typology of public innovation with four possibilities: “eccentric,” “discrete,” “flat” and “transformative” innovation and explain them through examples of recent practices, including some associated with the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. While not proposing a theory of Public Innovation, the chapter allows for the advancement in the exploration of causal connections within both dimensions of public innovation (novelty and scope). The conceptual relations between Public Innovation, on the one hand, and the literature on the Entrepreneurial State, missionoriented innovation and inclusive development, on the other hand, are also addressed. In connection to mission-oriented policy (MOP) for innovation, Hernandez, Castellanos, Gómez, Bermeo and Bautista discuss how this type of policies lead to action within a bold framework of wide societal relevance and clear direction, targeting at ambitious innovation activities and beyond the simple formulation and design of policies, since it also supports their implementation, execution and evaluation. According to the authors, this form of public policy design has a wide presence in developed countries and is already showing signs of adoption in Latin American countries, including Colombia. In consideration of this tendency, the authors add, this study bases on the a priori approaches defined in the theoretical focus of the MOP in order to validate, a posteriori, two Colombian cases of public policy guided by a mission and mediated by innovation processes in a broad sense. In so-doing, they analyze two cases: the National Optical Fiber Plan (NOFP) and the regional program of Medellin The Most Educated (MTME). Product of these cases are the lessons of interest to public policymakers and implementers. The chapter by Bortagaray and Aguirre-Bastos focuses on STI policies as drivers of sustainable and inclusive development in the context of the Central American countries. The work is part of a larger “action agenda” aimed at building capabilities for STI policy design and implementation by the national STI organizations in the region. It scans the horizontal and vertical policy instruments, their goals and linkages with broader developmental challenges. The paper discusses the national development and STI plans, when available, and the specific STI policy instruments and governance systems in place in Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama.

1

POLICY AND GOVERNANCE …

5

As for innovation policies under the Transformative Innovation Framework, as addressed by Garzón and Pamplona, the aim of the policies is to transform socio-technical systems, where production and consumption patterns should satisfy human needs, the authors claim and be oriented by sustainable development and inclusive goals. Differently from earlier innovation models, the authors add, transformative innovation aims at articulating new problems and actors neglected by existing innovation policies. As an illustration of the ways the Transformative Innovation Framework has been considered for regional policies in Colombia, the authors studied the National Science and Innovation Policy for Sustainable Development, the Green Book 2030. From this perspective, they analyze the (mis)alignment between theory (the transformative innovation framework), Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) policies at the regional level and practices implemented by policy actors, universities and civil society organizations. According to the authors, these three components create the governance of the transformative innovation policy in Colombia, where their theoretical approach focuses on the territorial perspective to investigate regional innovation policy. Their chapter aims, therefore, at discussing how the Transformative Innovation Framework has been assumed by policy actors and what possibilities and limits this Framework brings at the level of the provinces in Colombia. To do so, they implemented a qualitative approach in which data collection covered 31 semi-structured interviews with actors involved in STI regional policies, including government officers, university faculty members and researchers, and members of the civil society. According to Ordonez-Matamoros, Centeno, Andrade-Sastoque and Pinzon-Camargo, the notion of transformative innovation policy (TIP), which has gained much attention as part of growing debates on the role of innovation for environmental and societal challenges, particularly in the global North following the narratives triggered by the UN Millennium Goals and continued by the narratives on the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the European agenda on “Grand Challenges” and on “Responsible Research and Innovation”—among others—has been operationalized in emerging economies ignoring key challenges related to political and stakeholders’ will (or the lack of it thereof), despite the good intentions of government officials and scholars. They demonstrate this claim using the Colombian context.

6

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

Last but not least, along the line of the debates proposed by the authors in the previous chapters, Pinzon and Ordonez-Matamoros’ text aims at contributing to a better understanding of innovation policies in emerging economies from the path-dependence perspective. In so-doing, they assess the extent to which innovation policies, as implemented in Colombia between 1990 and 2018, are in a lock-in situation. Following the path-dependence framework, the authors show how a lock-in situation keeps governments from harnessing a diverse portfolio of orientations, missions and innovation practices to be accomplished in the country. Through document analysis and their own interpretation of key events, they conclude that innovation policies implemented in Colombia are in a lock-in situation characterized by a policy focused exclusively on industrial productivity, competitiveness and, therefore, in economic growth, making difficult any attempts to approach innovation policy towards social inclusion in the country. To conclude this, the authors ensemble a heuristic using concepts from governance and policy studies, the path-dependence model from Sydow, et al. (2009) and the four self-reinforcing mechanisms studied by Pierson (2000). Results lead to reflect on the governancerelated challenges of a new generation of innovation policies in Colombia capable of fulfilling legitimacy claims and making workable and effective contributions to social inclusion in the country. The second section of the book brings up six contributions on the governance of science, technology and innovation (STI) in the Latin American context. Centeno’s text asserts that policy instruments give way to operational policy networks which impact governance at the operational level of policy implementation, where actors’ roles may be differentiated in emerging economies such as Colombia. Meanwhile, Fernández’s “Regional diversification, technological trajectories and policy approaches. The case of Argentina’s satellite industry” studies the relationships between diversification strategies and technological trajectories and their consequent impact on mission-oriented technological policies by focusing on the case of the space industry in Argentina. On their side, Cevallos and Merino, in their “Structure and Operation of the National Policy Councils for Science, Technology and Innovation: the cases of Chile and Spain,” focus their efforts on the study of how STI national policy councils have gained traction as key actors by enhancing STI coordination and strategy in different national contexts despite growing complexity and expectations.

1

POLICY AND GOVERNANCE …

7

Hernandez’s et al. “Mission-Oriented Innovation Policies: An Approach to Two Colombian Cases,” instead, tackles the application of the MissionOriented Policy concept in Colombia and Latin America by examining two cases of public policy guided by a mission and mediated by innovation processes “in a broad sense”: one in the telecommunications infrastructure industry and another in the education sector. The authors assess the outcomes and offer policymakers some recommendations. In a similar direction, Montenegro’s “Adequacy of governance of science, technology and innovation in developing countries: the Colombian case” examines how STI governance may help break a “vicious circle”: a weak demand for knowledge, which does not legitimize knowledge generation and implies low though dynamic scientific production that, in turn, maintains an economy/society stagnated. So, the author contends, appropriate changes in STI governance may spark cultural change and ignite major societal transformations based on knowledge generation and usage as drivers of social and economic progress. Finally, Sierra’s “Innovation financing: a proposal to strengthen the Colombian setting” concentrates on an under-rated aspect of STI governance. As a matter of fact, the Colombian case serves to illustrate how traditional financial models do not explain the funding problems of innovation, nor contribute relevant solutions. Hence, an alternative explicative model is proposed on the basis of two considerations: (i) the matching environment and mechanisms that grant the meeting of funds supply and demand; and (ii) the conditions under which project owners and investors interact and reach an agreement. In this framework, a number of articulated proposals are advanced in order to improve and strengthen the funding of innovative projects in the context of the Colombian system of science, technology and innovation.

8

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

1.1 Lessons Learned from COVID-19 and New/revised STI Policy and Governance Challenges for Social Inclusion and Sustainability in Latin America The global crisis unleashed in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic1 is serving as a laboratory to build new hypotheses and theories and to test existing ones around the challenges and opportunities for effective innovation policy and governance in favor of the said political agenda in emerging economies, in general, and in Latin America, in particular. This is because the pandemic-related crisis has forced society and governments to consider the need to redefine priorities around the problems to be addressed with the help of Science, Technology and Innovation (STI), and the risks associated with such activities. The need to further explore and understand the role of STI policy for tackling societal challenges, the ethical dimension and issues implied in that relationship, the need to revisit and discuss about the distributional consequences of STI policies, both at the national and at the global levels, the modalities and dynamics embedded in the relationships among scientists, policymakers, the STI policy community, and the wider society are only some of the issues at stake that the COVID-19 crisis has made extremely visible. Furthermore, in this process the installed local capacity and the “strength” and “health” of the National Science, Technology and Innovation Systems (NSTIS) as a whole has been put to test, making the need to review it more urgent, in particular what has to do with the ability to provide effective responses to these and new/emerging problems. Actually, the relationship between science, innovation, politics and society has also been reshaped in this new context not only because of the novelty of the challenges ahead, but because of the whole new meaning of scientific and innovation endogenous capabilities. The current COVID-19-related pandemic requires both State bodies and civil society organizations to mobilize resources and political support typically “dormant” and reluctant to strive for greater social inclusion and environmental protection in Latin America, where new challenges have grown and new opportunities have emerged. Then, a new conception

1 This chapter was written at the end of the “first peak” of the pandemic.

1

POLICY AND GOVERNANCE …

9

of governance beyond the idea of simple coordination between public and private actors—including civil society—is needed to understand the complexities related to the deep socio-technical transformations that are taking place in the virtualization scenario and the new realities affecting the conditions under which jobs are being re-defined. In the name of the advancement of science, the automation of several systems in the economy has created an even broader gap between employment and social inclusion. Some of the transformations revolve around the “new world” of work, but many others regard also topics such as the way to think about medicine (e.g., vaccines) in terms of local capacities to manage the pandemic and other connected issues that need to be addressed urgently. Moreover, some worthy lessons of the improvised reaction in Latin America in the face of the pandemic actually show that actors in different spaces of society possess untapped capabilities and resources that have proven useful to create unimagined responses to the emerging situation. Companies, scientists, universities, government agencies, NGOs and other players have interacted, cooperated and produced outcomes unthought of before. This shows that under certain conditions, the “systemic approach” can be made more effective than usual and can successfully beget fruits that the typical formal system has eventually failed to bear. This is a space for opportunity and hope. The current crisis has, thus, meant a potential “seism” in the NSTIS architecture as well as in STI policy and governance. Yet, it is still not clear whether, as a consequence of this “new reality,” the final outcome will be more/less inclusive and/or more/less coherent with sustainable development. It is still not clear, either, that the said resistance to change is or not stronger and more entrenched than the opportunities arising in the new scenario.

References Alzugaray, S., Mederos, L., & Sutz, J. (2011). Building bridges: social inclusion problems as research and innovation issues. Review of Policy Research 29. Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2012). Research and innovation policies for social inclusion: Is there an emerging pattern? In H. M. M. Lastres, C. Pietrobelli, R. Caporalli, M. C. Couto Soares & M. Pessoa de Matos (Eds.),A Nova Geração De Políticas De Desenvolvimento Productivo, Sustentabildade Social E Ambiental. BID/BNDES/SESI/CNI 101–113.

10

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2016). Innovación Y Sistemas Nacional Es De Innovación En Procesos De Desarrollo. In A. Erbez & D. Suárez (Eds.), Repensando El Desarrollo Latinoamericano. Una Discusión Desde Los Sistemas De Innovación. Ediciones UNGS–Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento. Arond, E., Rodríguez, I., Arza, V., Herrera, F., & Sánchez-Mejía, M. (2011). Innovación, Sustentabilidad, Desarrollo E Inclusión Social: Lecciones Desde América Latina. STEPS Centre. Bhatti, Y. (2012). What Is Frugal, What Is Innovation? Towards a Theory of Frugal Innovation. In Y. Bhatti (Ed.), Secondary What Is Frugal, What Is Innovation? Towards a Theory of Frugal Innovation, Reprint. Bortagaray, I., & Gras, N. (2014). Science, technology and innovation policies for inclusive development: Shifting trends in South America. In G. Crespi and G. Dutrénit (Eds.),Science, Technology and Innovation Policies for Development: The Latin American Experience. Springer. Bortagaray, I., & Ordóñez-Matamoros, G. (2012). Introduction to the special issue of the review of policy research: Innovation, innovation policy, and social inclusion in developing countries. Review of Policy Research, 29: 669–671. Cholez, C., Trompette, P., Vinck, D., & Revrdy, T. (2012). Bridging access to electricity through bop markets: Between economic equations and political configurations. Review of Policy Research, 29, 713–732. Cozzens, S. (2009). Emerging technologies and inequalities: Beyond the technological transition—Draft. Atlanta. Cozzens, S., & Kaplinsky, R. (2011). Innovation, poverty and inequality: Cause, coincidence, or co-evolution? In B. -A. Lundvall (Ed.), Handbook of Innovation Systems and Developing Countries: Building Domestic. Cozzens, S., & Sutz, J. (2012). Innovation in informal settings: A research agenda. IDRC. Crespi, G., & Dutrenit, G. (2013). Políticas De Ciencia, Tecnología E Innovación Para El Desarrollo. La Experiencia Latinoamericana. Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico, A.C. Dutrenit, G., & Sutz, J. (2014). Introducción. In G. Dutrenit & J. Sutz (Eds.), Sistemas De Innovación Para Un Desarrollo Inclusivo. La Experiencia Latinoamericana. Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico, AC - LALICS. Edward Elgar Publishing AG. Fressoli, M., Arond, E., Abrol, D., Smith, A., & Dias, R. (2014). When grassroots innovation movements encounter mainstream institutions: Implications for models of inclusive innovation. Innovation and Development, 4, 277–292. Gupta, A. K. (1995). Peple’s knowledge for survival: Grassroots Innovations for Sustainable Natural Resource Management. Paper presented at the IFAD International Conference on Hunger & Poverty. Heeks, R., Foster, C., & Nugroho, Y. (2014). New models of inclusive innovation for development. Innovation and Development, 4, 175–185.

1

POLICY AND GOVERNANCE …

11

Kuhlmann, S., & Ordóñez-Matamoros, G. (Eds.). (2017). Research Handbook on Innovation Governance for Emerging Economies. Edward Elgar. LALICS. (2014). Lalics statement: Contributions from science, technology and innovation to social inclusion, Ed. LALICS. Montevideo. Macnaghten, P., Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Wynne, B., Azevedo, A., de Campos, A., Chilvers, J., Dagnino, R., di Giulio, G., Frow, E., Garvey, B., Groves, C., Hartley, S., Knobel, M., Kobayashi, E., Lehtonnen, M., Lezaun, J., Mello, L., Monteiro, M., Pamplona, J., Rigolin, C., Rondani, B., Staykova, M., Taddei, R., Till, C., Tyfueld, D., Wilford, S., & Velho, L. (2014). Responsible innovation across borders: Tensions, paradoxes and possibilities. Journal of Responsible Innovation. Planes-Satorra, S., & Paunov, C. (2017). Inclusive innovation policies: Lessons from international case studies. In S. Planes-Satorra, & C. Paunov (Eds.), Secondary Inclusive Innovation Policies: Lessons from International Case Studies. OECD. Reprint. Prahalad, C. K., & Hart, S. (2002). The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Strategy+Business, 26: 55–67. Sagasti, F. (2005). Knowledge and innovation for development: The sisyphus challenge of the 21st Century. Edward Elgar. Schot, J., & Steinmueller, E. (2016). Framing innovation policy for transformative change: Innovation policy 3.0. Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU). Smith, A., Fressoli, M., Abrol, D., Arond, E., & Ely, A. (2016). Grassroots innovation movements. Routledge. STEPS. (2010). Innovation, sustainability, development: A new manifesto. STEPS. Vaccarezza, L. S. (2004). El Campo Cts En AméRica Latina Y El Uso Social De Su ProduccióN. Revista Iberoamericana De Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad, 1, 211–218.

PART I

Innovation Policy

CHAPTER 2

Toward a Typology of Public Innovation. Eccentric, Discrete, Flat and Transformative Innovation Gustavo Valdivieso, Laura Uribe Gómez , and Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros

2.1

Introduction: A World of Public Innovations

Today, “innovation” is one of the most recurring terms in discussions on Public Administration. In all the corners of the world, the governments seek to reinvent themselves. They have created offices dealing with the promotion of public innovation in far-reaching contexts such as those in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Indonesia and South Korea (OECD, 2019b) and of course, in Colombia (DNP, 2019a).

G. Valdivieso (B) · L. Uribe Gómez Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia e-mail: [email protected] G. Ordóñez-Matamoros Universidad Externado de Colombia/University of Twente, Bogotá, Colombia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Ordónez-Matamoros et al. (eds.), Policy and Governance of Science, Technology, and Innovation, Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80832-7_2

15

16

G. VALDIVIESO ET AL.

The work of Mariana Mazzucato (2011, 2015) has pointed to the often overlooked role of the State in innovation and to the possibility of taking on new tasks to meet the new large global challenges through what is called mission-oriented innovation (Foray, 2012). Before the rise of this powerful trend of academic reflection, nevertheless, the movement of innovation in the public sector, and its broader version of public innovation that also includes the new responses from society on public problems, had been gaining strength since the start of the twenty-first century. Policies on public innovation are written and put into practice. Numerous conferences on Public Innovation are carried out and today dozens of Public Innovation labs are functioning around the world (Tõnurist et al., 2017). The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) created an Observatory on Innovation in the Public Sector in 2013 which, as of September, 2019, already registered 341 case studies on innovation in the Public Sector in America, Asia, Africa, Europe and Oceania (OECD, 2019c).

Public innovation initiatives are diverse in nature: in Argentina, the Government Laboratory, affiliated with the Deputy Secretary of Public Innovation and Open Governance, describes itself as “a team that offers consulting services and co-creates public policy solutions.” It studies the “behavior, emotions and experiences” of the citizens as a starting point to accompany government teams to (re) formulate their strategies of intervention in terms of public problems, promoting the use of prototypes of their proposals—simple versions of the products, services, tasks that allow for observing how the potential users react—before taking them to the level of new programs (LabGobar, 2019). In Colombia, the National Department of Planning defines its Public Innovation Team as “intra-entrepreneurial” with three main lines of actions: strengthen the capabilities of the public sector for innovation, accompany pilot projects for public innovation, and provide input on public policy regarding public innovation. Mandated by the National Development Plan for the period of 2018–2022, this team is in charge of strengthening the national ecosystem of public innovation—including the creation of a digital platform for joint cooperation of the actors involved. It also leads the creation of institutional conditions that favor public innovation including the creation of a Colombian Index of Public

2

TOWARD A TYPOLOGY OF PUBLIC INNOVATION

17

Innovation that offers input to national, regional and local entities to promote their strengthening, as well as the overcoming of legal barriers— including those resulting from the excessively restrictive interpretation of laws—the promotion of the creation of public innovation units in the central, departmental and local governments and the creation of a culture of innovation (DNP, 2019b). In Chile, the Laboratorio de Gobierno (Governmental Laboratory) has focused on accompanying processes of innovation in the public entities—as in Argentina—as well as creating a network of public innovators—as in Colombia. In accordance with the same laboratory, their work is guided by five principles: a focus on persons (understanding their needs and capabilities), co-creation (co-discovery, co-defining, codesigning and co-implementing in conjunction with multiple actors), systemic focusing (a holistic look at the problems and solutions), experimentation (using prototypes for “learning while doing”) and focus on the experience (understand and communicate based on stories and visual thought) (Chile, 2019). Not all the effort on public innovation has been centered on the creation of capabilities or the promotion of networks of innovation at the national level. Some are more one-off initiatives, for example regarding open government , smart cities or digitalization. In Indonesia, for example, one of the most recognized initiatives of public innovation is MAGMA Indonesia, which on the one hand digitalizes and gathers the information from different databases facilitating the monitoring of geological changes by authorities almost in real time and, on the other hand, as an application, places that information at the service of the citizens so that they can make their own decisions. Other initiatives include a digital platform for the management of information of intellectual property—in the logic of open data—and a system of decision support, based on the Internet, for authorities in the management of disasters which allows the access to multiple sources of information (OECD, 2019b). In South Korea, a number of the initiatives of Seoul’s Bureau of Innovation have been created around the strategy of “a sharing city”, where citizens are encouraged to share resources that range from books and clothing to parking spaces and lodging (Basu, 2016). However, there are initiatives in areas as far-reaching as the innovative public purchasing -Venture Nara, a virtual shopping center developed by the Korean Public Purchasing

18

G. VALDIVIESO ET AL.

Service especially for start-ups to promote and sell their products while they develop the muscle to compete in the large markets- or the citizen participation of those over fifty years of age in policies to aid in the ageing process of the population of the city (OECD, 2019b).

In Estonia, which has made a concerted effort in recent years to become a digital nation, one of the outstanding initiatives combines co-innovation in public policy (Osborne et al., 2016) with digitalization as a support for transparency: A platform of open software, Rahvaalgatus.ee, allows citizens “to first discuss a relevant issue, later to co-create a proposal, collect digital signatures and subsequently send the proposal to the Parliament and receive, digitally, updates on the process there. Estonia has also looked to establish data embassies which are servers located outside the physical space of the country that are legally under its jurisdiction” (OECD, 2019b). In Kenya, in a different context, citizen participation and open government have also been priorities in an “idea management system” called Angaza ZONE which seeks to utilize crowdsourcing of the proposals of officials and citizens to generate innovative ideas. Another important advance is geo-localization—as in Indonesia—but this time not for monitoring geological activity, but rather to connect the citizens to emergency services such as ambulances and the police in an efficient manner (OECD, 2019b). This short review of such a diversity of experiences in different places around the world illustrates that the field of public innovation is broadranging and, in many ways, quite diverse. Public innovation is not only citizen participation but also efficient public purchasing and digitalization. What do these different types of actions have in common? How do we compare them? And lastly, how do we explain the fact that some are broadly recognized and even imitated while others are neither? The rest of the chapter will be devoted to answering the following research question: What is public innovation, essentially? By better understanding its nature we hope to facilitate a more systematic exploration of the mechanisms that explain the varying results of the different initiatives on public innovation. In Sect. 2, we address the question regarding what public innovation is by exploring the multiple definitions it has. The section finishes with a definition of public innovation that involves two dimensions: novelty and

2

TOWARD A TYPOLOGY OF PUBLIC INNOVATION

19

innovation adoption. Based on this, in Sect. 3 a typology of public innovation is presented that identifies four types of innovation with respect to the two dimensions of novelty and the adoption of innovation. The contribution of this typology will be discussed in the conclusion, together with the new research questions that may be addressed based on its employment.

2.2

What is Public Innovation?

Both in academia and among those who foster it in the world, there are different approximations regarding what public innovation is. In gray literature, perhaps the most influential approximations are those of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank, organizations that have fostered numerous efforts in this field. Upon analyzing public innovation, the OECD has concentrated on the creation of public value and defines success as achieving the desired result: Innovation in the public sector deals with new ideas that work to create public value. Each public innovation is directed at facing a challenge in public policy and a successful public innovation is that which achieves the public result desired. (Daglio, 2014, p. 4)

In the most recent Declaration on Innovation in the Public Sector, the OECD defines innovation as “implementing something that is innovative within a context and which aims at achieving an impact” (OECD, 2019a). This way of approaching the concept is the same, generally speaking, that the OECD adopted in the third edition of the Oslo Manual when defining innovation broadly as “the implementation of a product (goods or services), process, method of marketing or new or significantly improved organizational method in business practices, work places or external relations” (OECD/Eurostat, 2005). The World Bank (BM, 2010), for its part, understands public innovation as “technology or practices” that must be widely used to be considered innovations. Innovation is understood as technologies or practices that are new for a determined segment of society. Nevertheless, they are not necessarily new in absolute terms. These technologies or practices are being widely used in

20

G. VALDIVIESO ET AL.

that economy or society. This point is important because that which is not disseminated and used is not an innovation. Circulation is very important and requires special attention in countries with low and medium incomes

Some authors in the area of Public Management agree with the approximation of the OECD and have conceptualized public innovation as, essentially, the generation of public value, just as the concept was developed by Moore and Stewart more than a generation ago: that which results from the assignment of resources by the State in accordance to the real preferences (not assumed) of the citizens from whom that same State extracts its resources (Moore & Stewart, 1997). In this dimension, the literature on Public Innovation touches on—and at times intermingles—with the literature on co-creation and coproduction of policies. Some examples can be found in the work of Roth (2016) and Zurbriggen and Lago (2014). The literature on design thinking (Brown & Wyatt, 2010; Howlett, 2014) is very influential among a good part of those who study and practice Public Innovation. TORFING and ANSELL (2014) highlight how, to contribute to public innovation, design is fueled by collaboration, by employing user surveys, workshops and other media to go more in-depth and transform the way in which problems are understood. They also identify three mechanisms through which collaboration generates public innovation: (a) Synergy: The different counterparts provide complementary resources or capabilities in such a way that it allows for providing a more diverse and combined set of services; (b) Learning: Since intense interaction with others that have differing perspectives generates new points of view, and in fact conflict which is endemic to collaborative processes can on occasion lead to re-framing the problems resulting in new programs or strategies; (c) Commitment: The counterparts must be committed to, and be authors of, the collaborative process so that this may be sustainable. Torfing (2018) emphasizes the distinctive contribution that collaboration can make to public innovation, especially since collaborative innovation allows for achieving less incremental changes and is the only innovation strategy in which the institutional and organizational barriers do not determine who takes part, but rather that is left to the relevant resources for innovation such as experience, creativity, financial resources and the capacity for implementation.

2

TOWARD A TYPOLOGY OF PUBLIC INNOVATION

21

Not all public innovations, nevertheless, are to the same degree the result of collaborative efforts between state and non-state counterparts. The monitoring of volcanic activity that is achieved through MAGMA Indonesia is placed at the service of the citizens, but it is not co-created with them. Estonia’s data embassies are another example in this vein as, and so is the bot specialized in identifying tax-evading e-commerce in social media in Medellin, Colombia (OECD, 2019b). If not the creation of public value through the active participation of the citizen-users, then what do the different forms of public innovation have in common? And how do they vary? The answer is not in the field of application: Even though the term has been defined in a way that fundamentally includes the different levels of Government (De Vries, 2016) and those linked to the Government through contracts (Osborne & Brown, 2011) as well as those regulated by it, the 2019 call for papers for the case bank of the Observatory of Innovation in the Public Sector of the OECD invites government organizations, those of civil society and the private sector, without greater differentiation (OECD, 2019b). Having carried out a review of 181 academic articles and books on innovation in the public sector, De Vries et al. (2016) find that 76 percent of these articles do not define innovation. Among those that do define it, the great majority cite Rogers (Rogers, 2003, p. 12) to define innovation as an adopted novelty: This may be “an idea, practice or object that is perceived as new by an individual or another unit of adoption.” These two dimensions, novelty and adoption, are the most frequently used in the conceptualization of innovation, including public innovation. And through these we can approach a response to the question regarding how to differentiate the results of different initiatives of public innovation. Likewise, public innovation is not identified by the way in which it is constructed, nor by its contribution to any objective in particular, but rather by the presence of two dimensions that are common in the most general literature on innovation, coming from business, which have been identified as: the levels of novelty and adoption of initiatives of innovation. The first dimension of public innovation is novelty. To even speak of Innovation, the perception of novelty and a differentiation from the past must be notable. (Bekkers, 2011; Rogers, 2003). For some authors, this novelty must break with conventional wisdom and habitual practices, and this is called disruptive innovation (Hartley,

22

G. VALDIVIESO ET AL.

2013; Osborne & Brown, 2011; Torfing, 2018) even though the disruption referred to here is a different concept to that of Clayton Christensen (Christensen et al., 2015) in the literature on business innovation which refers to the process of disruption of a market by a competitor with a business model different from the dominant one. Disruptive, for these authors from the field of Public Administration, refers to something that changes the practices or the mentality of an organization or a sector when addressing public problems. It is innovation that transforms the status quo in a way that closely matches what the Oslo Manual of the OECD (2018) classifies as radical innovation. Nevertheless, beyond the conception of these extreme forms of novelty, the same authors recognize that from the beginning with Schumpeter, the literature on innovation includes the option of incremental innovation (Damanpour, 1991; Fagerberg, 2004; Schumpeter, 1934). Incremental innovation implies small distancing with respect to existing practices (Damanpour, 1991, p. 561). Various authors accept the possibility and the relevance of Public Innovation of an incremental nature (e.g., Hartley et al., 2013; SULLIVAN & GRIGGS, 2014). The fact that innovation can be incremental does not eliminate the requirement of having some type of novelty involved. There should always be some degree of change involved, which in these cases does not mean a complete break with the past. In terms of impact, some authors sustain that the accumulative impact of incremental innovations can be equal to—and even go beyond—that of disruptive innovations (e.g., Faberberg, 2004, p. 5). Another precision to the element of novelty in innovation is the spatial dimension. In the literature it is common to accept that novelty in innovation should not necessarily be global, but rather the innovation must be so for the context in which it is applied(Hartley, 2005; TORFING & ANSELL, 2014). If a practice—for example, websites that report in a transparent form on government contracting and procurement—is already a deep-rooted custom in a country, but it arrives for the first time to another, this is still innovation in the second country. The second dimension of the concept of innovation is adoption, the stage in which the practical impact of the innovation is determined. According to the literature, innovation only occurs when it is adopted (Fagerberg, 2004) and this applies to public innovation as well (Hartley, 2005). Adoption itself is one of the central themes of the literature on

2

TOWARD A TYPOLOGY OF PUBLIC INNOVATION

23

innovation (Damanpour & Schneider, 2008) and also on public innovation (Hartley, 2005; Torfing, 2018; Torfing & Ansell, 2014) but it did not play a role in the conceptualization of public innovation. When the OECD (OECD, 2019a) defines innovation as the implementation of something novel and the World Bank (2010) specifies that public innovation must be widespread they are highlighting the same point: only when there is adoption can there be a practical impact of the innovation. This type of adoption itself can be conceptualized in a way that divides it into different stages. Rogers (2003) conceived of it as a process with five stages starting with the initial awareness of the innovation (knowledge), through the forming of a perspective toward it (persuasion), through later realizing activities that imply adopting or rejecting the innovation (decision), and finally putting it into practice (implementation) and seeking out positive reinforcement on the decision made, with the possibility of reversing course if the response is negative (confirmation). Of course, the process can stop not only in this last stage of confirmation, but also in any of the previous stages: If the idea proposed for innovation is not known by the potential users, it will not become innovation. If it is not persuasive to those users, it will not become innovation. If the idea is attractive, but for some reason it is decided not to be used, or for whatever reason the decision to use it is never made, then it is not innovation. And without a doubt, if after having been in use, the innovation is not confirmed through the continuation of its use, then there is no innovation. This model of innovation, which seems to assume that the users who must be persuaded to implement innovations are highly autonomous, could be interpreted as more closely related to the market situations and perhaps less closely to the public sector, in which at least the state functionaries can simply receive the order to implement an innovative idea, or even to contractual relations of the market between organizations or between these and individuals, in which there asymmetry is possible. However, the reality is that even in hierarchical contexts, it is possible that the expected users of an innovation simply do not use it. In general, nevertheless, the literature on innovation has dedicated more attention to the dimension of novelty than to the dimension of adoption. Even though in the literature on innovation in business the concept of disruptive innovation of Christensen refers to a great degree to a process of adoption, we cannot find an equivalent to that concept in the literature regarding public innovation.

24

G. VALDIVIESO ET AL.

If we focus on the two dimensions of novelty and adoption, and not just one of them, we can define public innovation as the generation and adoption of novelties in the form of acting on public problems by public, private and social sector actors. Those novelties can be incremental, implying small variations in practice or disruptive novelties that imply completely new ways of doing things. Of course, without a doubt we can ask ourselves what type of practices can change with public innovation. De Vries et al. (2016), building on the work of other authors (e.g., Bekkers et al., 2011; Damanpour & Schneideer, 2008; Moore & Hartley, 2008), find four major types of innovation: (1) process innovations that seek to improve the quality and/or efficiency of those processes, and that are subdivided into innovations of administrative processes—for example new forms of organization and new management methods- and administrative-technological innovations—introduction of new technologies, (2) innovation in products or services—creation of new products or services, (3) innovations in governance which are new ways of approaching specific social problems, as for example regulations on the Internet or self-regulations in certain markets and (4) conceptual innovations, new concepts, reference frameworks or paradigms that help transform the definition of problems and their solutions. Recognizing the utility of this typology, in this chapter our interest is to focus on exploring the magnitude of change that the different public innovations generate, only understanding that change in a more complete form than uniquely through the lens of novelty. For this specifically, we shall present a new typology regarding those two dimensions of innovation: novelty and adoption, specifically for the study of public innovation.

2.3 A Typology of Public Innovation in Accordance to Its Novelty and Adoption In this section, we will address the aforementioned typology of public innovation in accordance to its levels of novelty and adoption. Afterward, we will propose some more specific research questions and a method to study the form in which different innovations fit into this typology. The underlying conceptualization of the typology is that the level of public innovation will be greater or lesser according to the degree that the new forms of interaction with the public present greater or lesser

2

Table 2.1 Types of Public Innovation in Accordance with Novelty and Adoption

TOWARD A TYPOLOGY OF PUBLIC INNOVATION

25

Eccentric Innovation (low novelty, low adoption)

Transformative Innovation (high novelty, high adoption)

Discrete Innovation (low novelty, low adoption)

Flat Innovation (low novelty, high adoption)

discontinuity with the past and they achieve greater or lesser levels of adoption. A highly novel innovation adopted by very few, which reaches only a niche, will not greatly modify the status quo in terms of the way a public problem is tackled. However, the result is also not very distinct if the innovation is widely adopted but does not bring with it anything novel: The status quo of the response to the public problem does not change much. The typology identifies four types of innovations in accordance to the form in which they combine the dimensions of novelty and adoption. Each of these types can be located on a quadrant on Table 2.1 below. Upon continuation, we shall provide some general examples of each of these types, as well as others extracted from the observation of public innovation in the response to the crisis unleashed on a great part of the world by COVID-19, in accordance with the status of those responses near the end of March of 2020. The type of innovation in quadrant I that combines high levels of novelty with high levels of adoption—the highest values in each one of these dimensions—is the transformative public innovation. These innovations imply important novelties in the practices, as would be a radical level of digitalization of the government or the leap from a low level of citizen consultation to high levels of co-creation of a public policy, while achieving high levels of adoption. An example of this type could be the governmental platforms of open data in Latin America in the last decade. Another is the generalized confinement of the populations of dozens of countries around the world as an attempt at diminishing the advance of the COVID-19 virus at the end of the first quarter of 2020. Not only is the generalized confinement of large populations a highly novel innovation, at least in twenty-first century Western societies, but also its adoption has been generalized, from India to Ecuador and from Germany to South Africa.

26

G. VALDIVIESO ET AL.

The combination of high novelty and high adoption of a transformative innovation breaks the status quo in terms of the way of facing a public problem. This is precisely the case of massive confinement of populations carried out to tackle the expansion of a virus as in the case of COVID-19. The authority exercised by the State, not only in authoritative environments such as China but also in democracies in which these practices would have been unthinkable up to now, open a new type of possibility toward the future. The innovations required for the high decarbonization of transport in the coming years will have to be transformative. To obtain relevant levels of impact on the C02 emissions in the atmosphere, the new technologies will imply highly novel forms to power or even to replace engines with other technologies producing motion. But they will also require being massively adopted. Quadrant II illustrates the intersection between high levels of novelty in innovation—which in the literature on innovation in business and public innovation is frequently referred to as radical innovation—and low levels of adoption of that innovation. This is what we call eccentric innovation. An example of this type could be the aforementioned “data embassies” of Estonia or the digitalization of the process of construction and presentation of citizen initiatives to be brought to the Parliament in that same country (OECD, 2019b). In the response to COVID-19, a highly innovative—but very rarely replicated reaction that was in fact abandoned where it originated—was the early gamble of the government of the UK in favor of non-reaction, allowing life to continue in relative “normalcy” while their European neighbors imposed strict quarantines and hoping to achieve a large number of infected which would lead to a result of “herd immunity”— among the survivors—through the development of antibodies that could keep the virus at bay. While the bet for “herd immunity” produced very adverse reactions and was rapidly abandoned, another case of eccentric innovation could be the so-called telephone booths in South Korea. These were installed around one of the hospitals of Seoul and allowed medical workers to examine the citizens—isolated within the booth-thusly protecting the medical personnel that could take samples of sweat through the use of large-sized gloves attached to the structure of the booth, analyze these

2

TOWARD A TYPOLOGY OF PUBLIC INNOVATION

27

samples and within minutes generate a diagnosis. This method of examination was very novel and well-received in its moment but not widely adopted. Quadrant III presents the possibility of discrete innovations, where novelty levels are low—what the literature has called incremental innovation—and meet with low levels of adoption. An example could be a small innovation in the way of realizing a process before the State—for example, the request of a driver’s license or the registration of a child in a public school—that is also not widely spread, or not spread at all outside the jurisdiction where the new practice was started. In the response to COVID-19, an example of discrete innovation could be that of some states of the United States that adopted very lax policies of social distancing compared with those seen in other parts of the world: In Oregon, even after giving in to weeks of pressures applied by the Mayor’s Office of Portland, the Governor’s Office of the state ordered the closure of bars, gyms and cultural centers, among other spaces, but allowed the citizens to continue doing exercise in their neighborhoods. In the critical days of alert near the end of March of 2020, the measures taken by Oregon were far behind those adopted in various other states of the United States—such as California or New York—and also behind those adopted by the majority of governments in Latin America. Lastly, in quadrant IV, is what we call flat innovation, which is the result of the intersection of a relatively low level of novelty—that coincides with what the literature identifies as incremental innovation—and a high level of adoption. The flatlands, with which we associate this type of innovation, are extensive spaces of relative plainness. In the response to COVID-2020, the flat innovations included the additional controls in airports and the calls to increase the personal hygiene practices of citizens in the majority of the western countries in the first weeks of the expansion of the virus. The increased controls for passengers coming from places with high exposure to the virus had already been used during the alert for SARS in 2002–2003. Nevertheless, when faced with COVID-19, these were multiplied in airports around the world, as was also done in dozens of countries with the campaigns to frequently wash one’s hands and, in many places, the use of surgical masks. Another flat innovation at the end of March of 2020 was the use of Government programs of direct monetary transfers—a frequent tool of social policy—this time to support companies in the payment of salaries

28

G. VALDIVIESO ET AL.

(such as in Denmark) or to aid informal workers and persons without income, in general (such as in Colombia). These programs were put into practice to make it feasible to implement the quarantine.

2.4

Conclusions

So far, the research carried out allows for advancing the understanding of public innovation by concentrating not only on one but instead on the two dimensions that together define its impact: novelty and adoption. The research question is responded by understanding public innovation as a novelty adopted in response to public problems. Even though the gray literature highlights the role of adoption in public innovation (BM, 2010; OECD/Eurostat, 2005) the academic literature on public innovation has identified the changes in status quo that are generally looked for mostly through the dimension of novelty in innovation (Hartley et al., 2013; Martinez Navarro, 2017; Torfing, 2018) and rarely does it incorporate the analysis of adoption—the exceptions including De Vries et al. (2016) and Moore and Hartley (2008). The contribution of this typology to the literature on public innovation is to consider explicitly adoption as a dimension of public innovation, leaving behind the exclusive focus on the radical nature (novelty) of the change, thus facilitating, as we move forward, a more systematic exploration of the different experiences that takes into consideration, among other things, the contextual conditions that facilitate the diverse levels of novelty and/or adoption in the initiatives of innovation. Public innovation, therefore, is not defined as only that which proposes radical changes in the public sector (Hartley et al., 2013) nor as that which is built in a collaborative manner (Torfing, 2018; Torfing & Ansell, 2014). It is defined as adopted novelty—in the approach to public problems. This definition invites research not only on what conditions are associated with innovations with greater levels of novelty, but also on the conditions associated with innovations that are more frequently adopted, and on different combinations of both dimensions such as those that are present in the typology and in the examples presented in this chapter. The typology itself is not meant to be part of a more complete theoretical construction, a theory of Public Innovation that explains its origin, processes or the reasons why some innovation initiatives reach high levels of novelty, adoption or of both dimensions. This will be an effort made in future research.

2

TOWARD A TYPOLOGY OF PUBLIC INNOVATION

29

The typology allows, nevertheless, for the exploration of those causalities that it does not explain. Continuing efforts to research this would allow, for example, to explore the patterns in the distribution of innovations of process, product and governance (De Vries et al., 2016; Moore & Hartley, 2008) in the categories of transformative, eccentric, discrete or flat innovation. Based on that, it will be possible to explore if, and how, the dimensions of novelty and adoption are related to each other, as well as the possible influences of other conditions. There is now a relatively broad cross-section of literature on the conditions for innovation that apply to a great extent to public innovation. There is research on the relevance of institutional design for innovation (Bland, 2010) and also on the importance of the specific managerial level where it begins (Glor, 1998). Another recurring theme has been the role of regulation, even though with diverging conclusions from different studies: Johns, O’Reilly and Inwood (2006) and also Ongkittikul (2006) for example, support the position that regulation harms innovation, while the work of Rogers-Dillon (1999) on the program of Family Transition of Florida shows a direct, positive effect of requirements imposed by the Federal Government of the United States. In their literature review mentioned previously, De Vries et al. (2016) identify four types of conditions: one group in reference to the characteristics of innovations and three more on different levels in which other conditions are relevant: environmental, organizational and individual levels. In each of these levels, we find a set of relevant conditions for innovation. But those identified conditions seem to center more on the ideation than on the adoption of innovation, and until now they do not have a clear link—that could be construed—with the levels of novelty and adoption of the innovations. The form in which the levels of novelty and adoption vary in innovations of a distinct nature—of process, product, governance, conceptual— is proposed as a promising theme for future research. Certainly, it is adequate to place the possible findings in perspective. As was addressed above, for example, it is possible that a set of incremental innovations end up producing greater impacts in the evolution of a product or the provision of a service than one or a few disruptive innovations with high levels of novelty (Fagerberg, 2004). This, additionally, does not downplay the fact that, compared one by one, it is always relevant to know which of two innovations implies greater novelty, which achieved greater adoption and, above all, how the behavior in one of

30

G. VALDIVIESO ET AL.

these dimensions is explained, or not, by the behavior in the other, or by other factors. Despite the fact that this is not the aim of this research, a more processual approach to Public Innovation could also explore the conditions for “disruptive” innovation, in the intention of Christensen (Christensen et al., 2015), not that of Hartley (Hartley et al., 2013) in the public sector: Under what conditions can innovation aimed at addressing the unaddressed needs of the marginalized segments of society, for example, take a disruptive path? Or could it be the case of innovation aimed at public officials themselves—for example in local administrations with low access to technology and lower capabilities, in general? This last reflection allows us to connect to the relation between public innovation and inclusive development , which is to say, that which includes the “persons, sectors and countries marginalized in social, political and economic processes for the increase of welfare, social and environmental sustainability and empowerment” (e.g., Gupta, 2015; Gupta & Vegelin, 2016). Public innovation has great potential to be inclusive, since it is often fostered by the initiative of non-state actors. Upon analyzing the dimensions of innovation, novelty and adoption, we can explore the relation between the origin of the innovations and their levels of novelty and adoption. Does the level of novelty and/or adoption of innovation vary when it is originated in marginalized sectors? How many of the transformative or eccentric innovations come out of these sectors and why? Or, on the other hand, how much does the adoption of public innovation in those marginalized sectors vary? How transformative, eccentric, discrete or flat do they become and why? In any case, this research has the potential to improve our understanding of the bi-dimensionality of public innovation, perhaps reminding those encouraging it in Government, civil society and even the private sector that progress is needed in its two dimensions of novelty and adoption to achieve the desired results. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful for the comments of professors Carolina Isaza Espinosa (PhD) and Alejandra Parra Barbosa (MSc) on a prior version of this document which contributed notably to the analysis.

2

TOWARD A TYPOLOGY OF PUBLIC INNOVATION

31

References Basu, M. (2016). Exclusive: Inside Seoul’s Innovation Bureau. https://govins ider.asia/innovation/inside-seouls-innovation-unit/ Bekkers, V., Edelenbos, J., & Steijn, B. (2011). Linking innovation to the public sector: Contexts, concepts and challenges. In Innovation in the Public Sector (pp. 3–32). Springer. Bland, T., Bruk, B., Kim, D., & Lee, K. T. (2010). Enhancing public sector innovation: Examining the network-innovation relationship. The Innovation Journal: THe Public Sector Innovation Journal, 15(3), 1–17. BM. (2010). Innovation Policy: A guide for developing countries. World Bank Group. Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1), 29–43. Chile, L. d. G. (2019). Sobre el Laboratorio de Gobierno. https://www.lab. gob.cl/el-lab/ Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation. Harvard Business Review, 93(12), 44–53. Co-operation, O. f. E., Development, & Communities, S. O. o. t. E. (2018). Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation: OECD publishing. Daglio, M., Gerson, D., & Kitchen, H. (2014). Innovating the public sector: From ideas to impact. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555– 590. Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2008). Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 19. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/29738958. De Vries, H., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration, 94(1), 146–166. DNP. (2019a). Bases del Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2018–2022: Pacto por Colombia, pacto por la Equidad. Departamento Nacional de Planeación. DNP. (2019b). Dirección de Innovación y Desarrollo Empresarial. https:// www.dnp.gov.co/DNPN/direcciones/direcci%C3%B3n-de-innovaci%C3% B3n-y-desarrollo-empresarial Fagerberg, J. (2004). Innovation: A guide to the literature. Foray, D., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (2012). Public R&D; and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D; programs? Research policy, 41(ARTICLE), 1697–1702.

32

G. VALDIVIESO ET AL.

Glor, E. D. (1998). What do we know about enhancing creativity and innovation? A review of literature. The Innovation Journal, 3(1), 1–8. Gupta, J., Pouw, N. R. M., & Ros-Tonen, M. A. F. (2015). Towards an Elaborated Theory of Inclusive Development. The European Journal of Development Research, 27 (4), 541–559. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2015.30, https:// doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2015.30 Gupta, J., & Vegelin, C. (2016). Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(3), 433–448. Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Public Money and Management, 25(1), 27–34. Hartley, J., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2013). Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 821–830. Howlett, M. (2014). From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: Design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences, 47 (3), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-014-9199-0,https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11077-014-9199-0 Johns, C. M., O’Reilly, P. L., & Inwood, G. J. (2006). Intergovernmental Innovation and the Administrative State in Canada. Governance, 19(4), 627–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2006.00331.x, https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1468-0491.2006.00331.x LabGobar. (2019). LabGobar Laboratorio de Gobierno. https://www.argentina. gob.ar/modernizacion/gobiernoabierto/laboratoriodegobierno Martinez Navarro, F. (2017). INNOVACIÓN PÚBLICA EN AMÉRICA LATINA: CONCEPTOS, EXPERIENCIAS EXITOSAS, DESAFÍOS Y OBSTÁCULOS. Revista de Gestión Pública, VI , 15. https://www.researchg ate.net/profile/Freddy_Navarro2/publication/323345826_Innovacion_Publ ica_en_America_Latina_Conceptos_experiencias_exitosas_desafios_y_obstacu los/links/5a8f2f92a6fdccecffffd9f3/Innovacion-Publica-en-America-LatinaConceptos-experiencias-exitosas-desafios-y-obstaculos.pdf. Mazzucato, M. (2011). The entrepreneurial state. Soundings, 49(49), 131–142. Mazzucato, M. (2015). Building the entrepreneurial state: A new framework for envisioning and evaluating a mission-oriented public sector. Levy Economics Institute of Bard College Working Paper (824). Moore, M., & Hartley, J. (2008). Innovations in governance. Public Management Review, 10(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030701763161, https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030701763161 Moore, M. H., & Stewart, J. (1997). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Local Government Studies., 23(2), 150.

2

TOWARD A TYPOLOGY OF PUBLIC INNOVATION

33

OECD. (2019a). Declaration on Public Sector Innovation. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. https://legalinstruments.oecd. org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0450 OECD. (2019b). OPSI case studies. https://oecd-opsi.org/case_type/opsi/ OECD. (2019c). OPSI case studies. https://oecd-opsi.org/case_type/opsi/?_ countries=indonesia&_sort=title_asc OECD/Eurostat. (2005). Oslo Manual. OECD Publishing. Ongkittikul, S. (2006). Opportunities for innovation in public transport: Effects of regulatory reforms on innovative capabilities. Transport Policy, 13(4), 283. Osborne, S. P., & Brown, L. (2011). INNOVATION, PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC SERVICES DELIVERY IN THE UK. THE WORD THAT WOULD BE KING? Public administration, 89(4), 1335–1350. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01932.x Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? . Public Management Review, 18(5), 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037. 2015.1111927 Rogers-Dillon, R. H. (1999). Federal constraints and state innovation: Lessons from Florida’s family transition program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: THe Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, 18(2), 327–332. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Elements of diffusion. In Diffusion of innovations (Vol. 5, pp. 1–38). Roth, A.-N. (2016). Dispositivos democráticos de innovación pública para la formación de las políticas públicas. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/ Andre_Roth/publication/301959302_Dispositivos_democraticos_de_innova cion_publica_para_la_formacion_de_las_politicas_publicas/links/572cd9740 8ae7441518e6664.pdf Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle (Vol. 55). Transaction publishers. SULLIVAN, H., & GRIGGS, S. (2014). Necessity as the mother of reinvention: discourses of innovation in local government. In Public Innovation through Collaboration and Design (pp. 37–58). Routledge. Tõnurist, P., et al. (2017). Innovation labs in the public sector: what they are and what they do? Public Management Review, 19(10), 1455–1479. Torfing, J. (2018). Collaborative innovation in the public sector: The argument. Public Management Review, 1–11. Torfing, J., & Ansell, C. (2014). Collaboration and design: new tools for public innovation. In Public innovation through collaboration and design (pp. 19–36). Routledge.

34

G. VALDIVIESO ET AL.

Zurbriggen, C., & Lago, M. G. (2014). Innovación y co-creación. Nuevos desafíos para las políticas públicas. Revista de Gestión Pública, 3(2), 329–361.

CHAPTER 3

Mission-Oriented Innovation Policies: An Approach to Two Colombian Cases Iván D. Hernández , Juan Gonzalo Castellanos M, Andrés Gómez-León, Helga Patricia Bermeo-Andrade , and Sergio Sosa Bautista

3.1

Introduction

The role of knowledge expressed in Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI), which is so prevalent in developed countries, is still relatively incipient in developing countries, including Latin American countries like Colombia (Dutrénit & Sutz, 2014). It started in the 1970s of the last century in the gradual construction of an institutionality, mostly public or

I. D. Hernández (B) School of Economics and Business Sciences, Universidad de Ibague, Ibague, Colombia e-mail: [email protected] J. G. Castellanos M Andean Foundation for Technological and Social Development TECNOS, Bogotá, Colombia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Ordónez-Matamoros et al. (eds.), Policy and Governance of Science, Technology, and Innovation, Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80832-7_3

35

36

I. D. HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.

led by the state, with little participation of the private sector in this exercise (David et al., 2000; Marino et al., 2016; Moncayo, 2018). Although knowledge was a prevalent driver of the system of innovation approach to STI policy from the 1980s, it was adopted in “word only” in Colombia by funding agencies and there is little evidence of private sector involvement. The results in terms of STI to date in Colombia are relatively weak, compared with other Latin American nations such as Brazil (Mazzucato & Penna, 2016). If we translate this analysis into the regional development or development of sectors, considered strategic for the country, the balance is meager (Ramirez et al., 2018; Jiménez et al., 2011). For example, there are still technological, productive, and competitive gaps in the face of developments already installed, operational, and efficient in the industrialized economies (Dutta et al., 2015). Socially, there are still large gaps in aspects such as health quality, education, communication channels, housing, and physical security (Costanza et al., 2016). In environmental matters, the panorama is not encouraging. There are irrefutable indicators of loss of biodiversity and overuse of natural, mining, and agricultural resources, which affect other factors such as water sources and soils, aggravated by the global climate crisis (Pearce et al., 2013). The response in Colombia to these great challenges has been topdown, dependent on multilateral organizations, with some attempts to address regional disparity through royalties but hampered by tight bureaucratic limits and political-organizational control (Colciencias, 2019; Márquez, 1996). The role assigned to scientific-technological knowledge and the innovation has been a marginal in terms of strategicpragmatic at the national, regional, and sectoral levels, both in public and in private investment.

A. Gómez-León Universidad Piloto de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá, Colombia H. P. Bermeo-Andrade School of Engineering, Universidad de Ibagué, Ibagué, Colombia S. S. Bautista Universidad de Ibagué, Ibagué, Colombia

3

MISSION-ORIENTED INNOVATION POLICIES …

37

MOP emerges as an alternative policy approach the methodology of which consists of breaking down the major challenges into strategic missions (Dutrenit et al., 2020). The philosophy of large-scale projects, involving several sectors, both public and private, must act under the leadership of an agency, which would execute the missions by articulating entities, organizations, and groups from different sectors depending on the characteristics and scope of the task (Mowery et al., 2010). Different agencies may coexist depending on the nature of each major challenge. All of them will have as their main axis an emphasis on scientific-technological development and international and national technology transfer, not only from the universities and toward the companies and entities, but also from the knowledge and technologies needed to overcome the challenge (Mazzucato, 2015).1 The challenges will have to be selected or accepted not only because of their urgency or because of international commitment, but also because of their strategic characteristics in relation to the national development of economic and social sectors in terms of impact, not only results, as well as their capacity to create collective imaginaries, promote inclusion, and articulation (Lazonick & Mazzucato, 2013). The missions are decisions taken by a think tank and strategic decision-making body made up of authorities and experts, both public and private. In order to meet each major strategic challenge, a public–private forum or organization (council, committee, high commission, high council, board) must be created to design the general plan and for the decisions that affect its execution (Block & Keller, 2015). Both the challenges and the missions must have continuity through various periods of government, and the projects that make up each mission must have professional management with the purpose of achieving final and partial results in an efficient way (Mazzucato & Robinson, 2018).

3.2

Importance of the Mission-Oriented Approach for Colombia

In recent years STI policy in Colombia has developed a governance system based on addressing regional disparities, responding to regional 1 See Schot and Steinmueller, (2018) for other kind of approaches that take the same question of directionality as a starting point and that require a process for setting collective priorities.

38

I. D. HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.

needs, and overcoming perceived over-centralisation (Edurne et al., 2018; Salazar, 2017). As a result, the country now has the—STI funds of the General Royalty System—GRS to reduce these regional disparities and the agenda-setting includes descentralized agents in regions. In spite of these important institutional developments, the management of this fund has been strongly criticized and the poor results of its execution until 2018 (Orozco et al., 2019), offered arguments to generate, in June 2018, the regulatory Law Reform of the STI Fund. This reform modified the way the Science, Technology, and Innovation Fund (STl) resources were distributed.2 The Mission-Oriented Innovation Policies (MOIPs) lead to action and prevent limiting itself to the word or the verb, which constitutes the main vehicle used by clientelism to divert resources: to stop the instrumentation, implementation, and evaluation of public policy (Flores, 2012). The case studies developed in this document show how the MOIP allows for crossing the limit or threshold imposed by simple agenda and policy formulation. In this context, public policymakers are agents that contribute to both the formulation of the agenda and the problem, as well as to its implementation, execution, and evaluation. Missions reflect a narrative mechanism (based on history) intended to evoke action. The effect it achieves is to give aspiration(s) and focus(s) to the sector and to public investment based not only on thought but also on strategic action. “The task of governing is first and foremost one of foresight and of making it possible to believe, to have hope and the determination to act, and to commit oneself. This requires governors with the capacity to move opinion with fictions” (Ospina, 2017, free translation). One of the referents in this material is Mazzucato (2018) who addresses the issue of innovation policy objectives by basing her examples on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), focusing on innovation policy goals through the important concept of missions (Li et al., 2017). Under this approach, the missions focus precisely on the future to change conformist standards of conduct of the corporatist working groups (Hofstede, 2018). Missions emerge as mechanisms to break out of the trap where the future is already predetermined, without 2 According to Montenegro (2017), if the amount of unfunded but eligible projects between the periods of 2012–2016 is taken into account, the sum of unsatisfied demand amounts to 362,3 billion pesos, assuming that the amount of unfunded projects is equivalent to the average of funded projects.

3

MISSION-ORIENTED INNOVATION POLICIES …

39

hope and without the possibility of taking action to change self-fulfilling prophecy. The state and its officials can constitute be those catalytic agents for the joint action to co-construct the future.

3.3

Research Methodology

The methodology of this research is reasoned induction. In fact, conclusions and recommendations are inferred from the case studies (MTME and NOFP), primary and secondary sources) to strengthen the implementation of a mission-oriented approach to innovation policy in Colombia and thus help the country achieve smart, inclusive, and sustainable long-term growth. The methodological framework addressed in this study was based on the Mazzucato and Penna (2016) report mentioned above. This facilitated the route for the design and implementation of the case studies, in order to identify opportunities to opt for a MOIP approach that seeks to solve social challenges. Historically, mission-oriented policies (MOPs) sought to achieve major technological challenges. In the new wave of mission-oriented innovation policies, the objective is to solve major social and environmental challenges: complex problems whose solutions require the involvement of multiple actors from government, private sector, and other stakeholders. At the rhetorical level, missions are a narrative mechanism intended to inspire society and evoke action, achievements and successes, through ambitious goals such as putting “man on the moon.” The effect it achieves is to give aspiration(s) and focus(s) to the sector and to public investment based not only on thought but also on strategic action (Mazzucato, 2018). 3.3.1

Selection of Case Studies

The first task was to select the case studies: Medellin The Most Educated—MTME (2004–2011) and the National Optical Fiber Plan— NOFP (2012–2018). These selected cases (short-listed from a total 23) took into account the five criteria that the missions must meet, according to Mazzucato (2017, 2018): • Missions should be challenging, inspiring, and involving broad “societal” relevance (i.e., society and its relationships), should impact the

40

I. D. HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.

• • •

•

daily lives of populations, but should not focus only on one group of people and should not be confused with popularity. They should have a clear direction, with measurable and time-bound objectives to allow for long-term investments and monitoring. They should be ambitious, in the sense of facing great challenges by pooling many forces at the same time, and taking risks, but even of realistic research that promotes innovation actions. Missions should generate innovation to the extent that it facilitates through different forms of association (inter-disciplinary— inter-sectorial or inter-actors), the co-design and co-creation in search of solutions that can lead to unique or non-conventional transformations compared to existing or known systems. Missions should be aware of the different and multiple solutions there are, since no unique solution fulfills the mission (i.e., bottomup) and it has to be understood that some options fail in their execution or will have to be adjusted in the process. 3.3.2

Structure of the Case Studies

In order to facilitate the understanding of the analyzed cases, we structured it as follows: (a) justification of how the cases are compatible with the MOIP vision; (b) description of the context in which the Mission emerged and took hold (legitimacy of the mission); (c) classification and analysis of capacities because of the interviews in the application zone; and (d) evaluation of the capacities evidenced in the mission, based on the theoretical framework already indicated. The overall objective of this research is to provide analytical and technical support to policymakers on how to strengthen the institutional capacity of the public sector in Colombia for the implementation of MOIP. The inferred conclusions and recommendations (MTME and NOFP, primary and secondary sources) should also shed light on implementing a mission-oriented approach to innovation policy to achieve smart, inclusive, and sustainable long-term growth.

3

3.3.3

MISSION-ORIENTED INNOVATION POLICIES …

41

Thematic Analysis

We followed the recommendations of the Mazzucato (2018) and used the Thematic Analysis of the interviews.3 Maguire and Delahunt (2017) explain Thematic Analysis as the process of identifying patterns within qualitative data for further organization and analysis. The advantage of this method is that it offers flexibility to the person working with it. There are two key aspects for the relevance and veracity of the research results to keep in mind: both coding and systematization of the interviews. Qualitative analyses in many occasions the information relate to influences in the narrative of the sources. It is pertinent to be able to trace and determine the origins of the information in a fast way in order to be able to confirm, discard, discover gaps, incoherencies, inconsistencies, and facilitate the logical development of the analysis of the information (Barrera et al., 2012). For Andréu (2002) the thematic analysis bases mainly on the choice of terms or concepts without taking into account the relationships that may exist between them. It can be developed using three possible techniques: frequency search, search for words within a context, and classification and identification of topics. The technique that can have a greater use is where the frequency with which some term, word, or concept appears is searched and then analyzed in depth according to topics defined at the beginning of the analysis. According to Andréu (2002), some programs help develop thematic analysis, such as Atlas TI, the program used in this research allows words or texts to relate through codes. Based on these codes, the reports extracted texts to which each code correspond, so providing the possibility of performing an analysis of the meanings, relationships, and other characteristics that a group of codes have. For this reason, a thematic analysis with the help of the Atlas Ti ® program to analyze the data obtained through the surveys. To make the contents more readable, the texts are assigned labels (or codes in AtlasTI® language), so that the most interesting and significant contents are highlighted in the reading or systematic observation of the texts. The first step was to assign a code to the survey questions, that is, to assign a keyword to each of the survey questions. This step took into 3 The survey questionnaire, as well as a detailed list of respondents, are available to the reader by request to: [email protected] or [email protected].

42

I. D. HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.

account the characteristics of the different groups, in order to differentiate the responses in the analysis. The next step was coding the interviews in Atlas TI® , by selecting the interviewees’ responses and assigning them a code. This step was applied in all responses from all the interviewees. The code and word clouds reported by the software, once available, were split in different files. The significant words were selected with word clouds based on their recurrence and/or relevance (the most repeated words have the larger size in the word cloud). Next, the texts that were linked to these words were identified, and afterward files were created containing the filtered responses of interviewees.

3.4 3.4.1

Two Cases of Colombia4

Case 1: National Optical Fiber Plan (NOFP)

The Challenge The National Optical Fiber Plan (NOFP) is one of the actions embedded in the national policy called Vive Digital Plan. Since its launch in 2010, this plan aimed to promote the mass use of the Internet in order to achieve social purposes (see Fig. 1), based on 5 basic principles: (a) promote the development of the private sector to expand infrastructure and offer services; (b) incentive in an integral way the supply and demand of digital services to achieve critical mass; (c) reduce regulatory and tax barriers to facilitate the deployment of infrastructure and supply of telecommunications services; (d) prioritize State resources in capital investment; and (e) make the government one of the first adopters of these technologies, to set an example (MINTIC, 2017). Traditionally, telecommunications and Internet services, especially in Colombia, in the last three decades, concentrate in large cities, 6 with more than 1,000,000 inhabitants and others with more than 100,000 inhabitants. However, a large percentage of cities and municipalities, at least 80% in the national territory, do not have connectivity or complementary services in local and regional actors in government, academia, industry, communities, and civil society.

4 The main source of both cases is the information extracted from the thematic analysis based on the in-depth interviews.

3

MISSION-ORIENTED INNOVATION POLICIES …

43

The projects that were associated with the NOFP were: ViveLab, Operation, maintenance, and commercial exploitation of the fiberoptic network, private investment projects in R&D and InnovationTechnology-Science, Investment of Mexican economic group (Grupo Salinas), Programs of social appropriation of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT), Apps.co Program of the Ministry of ICT, Vive Digital. MOP characteristics in NOFP.5 Challenging, inspiring and with wide “societal” relevance. • Social sense of urgency: The ICT Minister realized that communications companies were not reaching out and would not reach more than 250 municipalities. The vast majority of the country’s municipalities were lagging behind, therefore creating a broadband connectivity gap and increasing regional disparities. A clear direction: with measurable and time-bound objectives • The universality of services and opportunities to operate at fifteen, twenty, or even thirty years, without capacity limitation • Multiply the number of communications companies • Multiply digital citizenship Ambitious in the sense of facing great challenges by joining many forces at the same time, • The objective of the (NOFP) was to promote the deployment of optical fiber transport infrastructure in the country, connecting 788 municipalities that did not have such technology, thus generating adequate conditions for the telecommunications sector to increase its service coverage in the national territory. The main challenge was to complete the installation of the fiber-optic network in the two remaining municipalities and to ensure compliance with the quality indicators established for the project. 5 The information henceforth in the NOFP case is based on the thematic analysis of in-depth interviews.

44

I. D. HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.

Innovation generator: co-design and co-creation in an associated way and for change. • Social innovation: flipped or inverted “class” at households with child-to-parent training • The decentralized infrastructure at the country level, facilitated the activation of technology-based entrepreneurship in the software industry, with innovative business models both in the technical part (a form of operation under web environments) and in the business part (new forms of monetization and business. Missions should be aware of different and multiple solutions, since there is not a unique solution to fulfill the mission • The use of fiber optics in the last mile enabled several digital communication services, some of which connected 1.226 public institutions by 2014. These institutions had broadband internet service free of charge during the consequent 5 years. The Digital Homes Program seeks to bring and promote the use of internet in strata 1 and 2 in order to make internet an essential tool in the lower strata of Colombia and the Digital Connections Program seeks to increase last mile access for priority interest housing (VIP), public institutions and homes in strata 1 and 2. (MINTIC, 2014). Sugiero normalizar con la sigla de la entidad. • There was a social appropriation of ICT thanks to Programs such as Computers for Education. In 2014 and 2015 this Program gave access to tablets and computers to more than 2,600,000 students and 54,000 teachers for the use of ICT in the educational processes of schools and public schools in Colombia (MINTIC, 2015)Asi. • New jobs, talents, and skills for higher education, among which is the Digital Citizenship Program, aimed to improve training processes and certify people as digital citizens by promoting ICTs through classrooms and virtual courses, especially for the population that has no other options for training (MINTIC, 2016).

3

MISSION-ORIENTED INNOVATION POLICIES …

45

NOFP’s Achievements As reported in public reports and through interviews with relevant actors in the implementation of the NOFP, among the achievements to be highlight we can find: • It facilitated a positive impact in the software industry at the country level beyond the large cities. The number of companies increased fivefold. In the sector, it went from 1,800 companies in 2014 to 6,096 companies in 2016. • Change in the lives of citizens, by bringing knowledge and new information technologies to all strata (e.g., digital libraries and computer rooms). • An early approach to children and young people, who in turn served as facilitators in the adoption process and motivated changes in schools and homes. • Closing the analog–digital gap in the country, with actions for connectivity as “the last mile”. Remember that from 1998 to 2011, the Internet reached only 200 municipalities; and from 2011 to 2017, more than 800 municipalities were included. • More than $2.4 million people certified as digital citizens. • Colombia stood up higher in the IT brand ranking © for Latin America6 3.4.2

Case Medellin The Most Educated

Challenge Leaders and public officials in Medellin, capital of the department of Antioquia, and the second most important city in Colombia, set the grand challenge of transforming its late twentieth century past, marked by a poorly diversified economy based mainly on the textile industry, and by violence stemming from drug trafficking.7 Given these circumstances, the local government developed different models to improve the quality of life and human development indexes, among them the MTME Program. Its objective was to guarantee the right to education for all;

6 https://brandirectory.com/rankings/latin-america/ 7 At the time Medellin classified as one of the most dangerous cities and with the

lowest life’s quality in Latin America

46

I. D. HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.

Fig. 3.1 NOFP program as seen from the MOP scheme Source adapted from Mazzucato (2018)

increase coverage; offer quality public education from initial to secondary education; decrease dropout at all educational levels; and increase access to higher education. The long-term challenge was to generate significant changes in the quality of life of its citizens, diversify the economy, diminish the social gap, and develop qualified labor (see Fig. 3.2). Diverse projects were associated with the MTME Mission. The projects ranged from first infancy to higher education Programs, public–private entities partnerships, NGOs, and the private sector organizations involvement such as Tecnnova, Ruta N, Pact for innovation, Culture E, Explora Park, Parques Bibliotecas, Construction of schools, Project of the EafitMontessori-Nutresa triad, Fundación Fraternidad Medellín with ITM, Software Cluster with the construction of the Vivero del Software, and companies supporting volunteer work in public schools in the most vulnerable areas of the city. MOP characteristics in MTME Challenging, inspiring and with wide “societal” relevance. • Great challenge: It was the recovery of security when Medellin was unfeasible. It was, therefore, necessary to redirect the city’s great

3

MISSION-ORIENTED INNOVATION POLICIES …

47

Fig. 3.2 MTME Program as seen from the MOP scheme Source adapted from Mazzucato (2018)

talent and human capital, especially its youth, through education to face the challenges of the twenty-first century. • A radical change in the living conditions of millions of people due to a significant decrease in violence rates and a substantial improvement in performance indicators in state tests • Medellin’s mission evolved from “Medellin the Most Educated” to “Medellin, the Most Innovative” (Restrepo, 2006). A clear direction: with measurable and time-bound objectives • Education was understood as the engine of transformation • High transparency to bring the private sector and community together to present management and accountability. • A Development Plan and a matrix structure were required to monitor strategic projects. Ambitious in the sense of facing great challenges by joining many forces at the same time

48

I. D. HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.

• The bulk of public development plan resources were in education, culture, innovation, and sport. • The public sector took risk, i.e., the municipal administration assumed an ambitious mission. • Although it was truly uncertain for organizations involved, MTME worked, not only in physical infrastructure, but also in practical exercises through commitment to real politics for the city. • The expansion of public financing was significant. • Relatively higher investments of local private business of Antioquia. • Without “Medellin the most educated” there would be no “Medellin the most innovative.” Innovation generator: co-design and co-creation in an associated way and for change. • The NGOs articulated the other actors (the CTA, Créame, the same Route N, Proantioquia, and fundamentally the Chamber of Commerce). • Diverse public institutions were capable of developing their strategies around the MTME mission. • The creation of the University-Business-State Committee in 2004 determined that the base of the mission was ST&I. This is when the creation of Tecnova was encouraged by 8 main universities. • A Municipal Norm created the prize Quality of Education. • The debate on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the last fifteen to twenty years has had an impact and mobilized the companies’ areas for technology. • The Centre of Science and Technology of Antioquia (CTA) developed the Regional Competitiveness Plans and the Chamber of Commerce developed the cluster programs. • Increase in the trust in the public sector for the attraction (i.e., “crowding in”) of private investments and revitalization of the regional economy. Missions should be aware of different and multiple solutions, since there is not a unique solution to fulfill the mission

3

MISSION-ORIENTED INNOVATION POLICIES …

49

• Each Secretary or Department of the Municipality based its own Programs and Plans on how it contributed to the goal. • There was a greater sense of belonging and urgency in the city which forced people to propose new ideas from the bottom-up MTME‘s Achievements According to the report of the organization Veeduría de Medellin (2017), among the outstanding achievements of the MTME Programare • It increased coverage of the degree of transition to 95%, well above the proposed target of 80%. • Achieved coverage in basic education of more than 98%, while in secondary education, the gross coverage rate (without extra age and adults) increased to practically 100%. • The proposed goal was to reach 10.000 children with schooling needs, however, the program managed to went beyond the goal to 14.000 children. • Lower Dropout and repetition rates. • Provision of transport allowance to just over 30.000 students. • Generation of more than 22.000 new spots in higher education. 3.4.3

Lessons Learned from Case Studies

Some of the lessons derived from the analysis of the Colombian cases can extract. The first one is that the leadership of public sector is vital, if it corresponds to local capacities, contextual opportunities, and strategic areas of development for inclusive and sustainable growth (e.g., development of missions based on local development plans). There is a need for training in the public sector in order to build capacity to appropriate the concept of mission and concrete examples of missions. It is also necessary to train political actors in the approach to challenges that affect communities and to train innovation policy agents and managers a priori, to ensure the alignment between planning-execution-evaluation. There is a need to strengthen the role and alliances of the public sector with the Chambers of Commerce and NGOs for greater trust, intermediation, training, and articulation of the National System of STI. There is also a need to strengthen and expand public sector training (i.e., Weberian bureaucracy)

50

I. D. HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.

on the nature of innovation and its central role in the country’s development. It is required to develop the missions that Strategic Plans need to follow, accompanied by the instrumentation, implementation actions and key indicators for detailed monitoring. On the academic sector’s side, there is a requirement to connect academia more with the productive sector by aligning universities with the challenges and societal needs of the community. The link between innovation and “societal” challenges cannot continue under a “scientific disguise” but through real and visible facts, with knowledge generation (research and innovation, traditional knowledge); and through inducing demand for knowledge in the productive or social sector. It is important to maintain and empower, at the regional and national level, UniversityIndustry-State-Society Committees to enable less hierarchical and more effective and inclusive mechanisms of interaction and the creation of regional innovation agencies (i.e., as RutaN). On the public sector’s side, it is relevant to interconnect public and private investment to reduce budgetary dependence in the execution and sustainability of innovation policies (e.g., direct calls to the private financial sector and consolidation of the Development Bank, i.e., Bancoldex). In this sense, the public sector needs to define and promote the direction of development and diffusion of relevant and necessary technologies for an intelligent and effective strategy of innovations useful to society and profitable in the market, seeking partnerships between different actors and seeking active participation. So that, there is a need to develop a mechanism or an instrument of coordination between the different actors, public and private, seeking to materialize the public–private links. The creation of an Innovation Agency (or the Innpulsa Programme itself) could have within its mission objectives the materialization and consolidation of these links. Finally, more attention should be paid to the private financial system with direct calls or invitations from the public sector and tax (or other appropriate) incentives, coupled with campaigns that raise awareness of the role of the financial system in the SNCTI, and academic studies that facilitate the design of innovative incentives to attract the private financial system and link it to the mission of financial organizations.

3

3.5

MISSION-ORIENTED INNOVATION POLICIES …

51

Final Discussion

It is feasible for Colombian society to think of missions within the regional and national scope, with well-defined timing and goals, which fulfill quality conditions, and with the participation of diverse actors and entrepreneurial state defining goals. It is also possible with a well-defined leadership framework in terms of sustaining the minimum conditions that projects should meet. Even under changes in the leadership of the Ministry of ICT and the government itself, the programs should achieve consistency and continuity. Each participating agent can contribute their expertise in the field with tangible results. The state can act as an “entrepreneur” and promote innovation by assuming a role as a strategist that generates binding and well-defined participation at different levels and in different sectors. These “missions” show the multiple possibilities of action to transform society. The public sector can show itself as a capable director, which recognizes that local needs exceed its knowledge and in that sense, it gives room to a framework of guidelines for local and non-local entities and private firms to propose, execute, and develop their own proposals. In this way, the society can achieve the goals that bottom-up strategies propose, allowing for inter-sectoral participation, new processes, new schemes, and new solutions to problems. The Mission-Oriented Innovation Policies (MOIPs) lead to action and prevent limiting itself to the word or the verb. The case studies developed and analyzed in this document show how the MOIP allows the governance of the CTI system and, in particular, public policymakers to contribute not only to the formulation of the agenda and the problem, but also to its implementation, execution, and evaluation. Hence, the MOIP emerges as mechanisms to break out of the trap where the future is already predetermined, without hope and without the possibility of taking action to change self-fulfilling prophecy. MOIP empowers the agents of the CTI system to join action and co-construct the future. Acknowledgements This chapter has been constructed based on information collected by the authors in the framework of the applied research contracted by the IDB in Colombia, on Mission-Oriented Innovation Policies (2017– 2019). The authors thank the comments of Caetano Penna & Iván Montenegro researchers, as well as the assistants of both the Conversatory on Policies and Programs of Mission-Oriented STeI held in Colciencias (Bogotá, 2019) and the International Congress on Knowledge and Innovation Governance organized by the CTI Governance Network (Bogotá, 2019). Any errors remain responsibility of the authors.

52

I. D. HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.

References Andréu, J. (2002). Las técnicas de análisis de contenido: una revisión actualizada. Fundación Centro de Estudios Andaluces, Universidad de Granada, España. Disponible en: http://public.centrodeestudiosandaluces.es/pdfs/S20 0103.pdf Barrera, M. D. M., Tonon, G., & Salgado, S. V. A. (2012). Investigación cualitativa: El análisis temático para el tratamiento de la información desde el enfoque de la fenomenología social. Universitas Humanística, 74, 195–225. Block, F. L., & Keller, M. R. (2015). State of innovation: The US government’s role in technology development. Routledge. Costanza, R., Fioramonti, L., & Kubiszewski, I. (2016). The UN Sustainable Development Goals and the dynamics of well-being. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(2), 59–59. Colciencias (2019). Misión Internacional de Sabios 2019. Recuperado 7 de febrero de 2019, de https://colciencias.gov.co/sala_de_prensa/mision-intern acional-sabios-construira-hoja-ruta-para-la-investigacion-e-innovacion David, P. A., Hall, B. H., & Toole, A. A. (2000). Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence. Research Policy, 29(4), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00087-6 Dutrenit, G., Natera, J. M., & Vera-Cruz, A. (2020). Capacidades institucionales en las políticas de innovación en México: elección, diseño y evaluación: estudios de caso. Informe BID (en edición). Dutrénit, G., & Sutz, J. (2014). National innovation systems, social inclusion and development: The Latin American experience. Edward Elgar Publishing. Dutta, S., Lanvin, B., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2015). The global innovation index 2015. Effective Innovation Policies for Development, Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization. www.wipo.org Edurne, M. M., Ramos C., José, Jiménez G., Clara C., Montoya R., Francísco J., Olaya D., Alejandro, N., Sebastian, Pinzón V. L. (2018). Orientaciones para la formulación de políticas regionales de innovación transformativa en Colombia. Bogotá: Departamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. Downloaded in May 22, 2018 from: http://ocyt.org.co/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/orientaci ones-formulacion-politicas-regionales-transformativas.pdf. Flores, F. (2012). Conversaciones para la acción. Inculcando una cultura de compromiso en nuestras relaciones de trabajo. Bogotá. Hofstede, G. (2018). Encuesta Mundial de Valores. Colombia. Recuperado 12 de agosto de 2018, de https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country/colombia/ Jiménez, F., Fernández de Lucio, I., & Menéndez, A. (2011). Los sistemas regionales de innovación: revisión conceptual e implicaciones en América Latina. En G. Crespi, G., P, D’Este, J. Llisterri & C. Pietrobelli (Eds.), Los Sistemas Regionales de Innovación en América Latina, Capítulo 1 (pp. 8–27). BID. Recuperado de http://publications.iadb.org

3

MISSION-ORIENTED INNOVATION POLICIES …

53

Jiménez, R., & Heraldo, H. (2007). Made in the world is better: las misiones económicas en Colombia y nuestro descreimiento ancestral. Revista Facultad de Ciencias Económicas : Investigación y Reflexión, XV (1). Recuperado de http://www.redalyc.org Lazonick, W., & Mazzucato, M. (2013). The risk-reward nexus in the innovation-inequality relationship: Who takes the risks? Who gets the rewards? Industrial and Corporate Change, 22(4), 1093–1128. Li, F., Butel, L., & Wang, P. (2017). Innovation policy configuration – A comparative study of Russia and China. Policy Studies, 38(4), 311–338. https://doi. org/10.1080/01442872.2017.1308477 Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. AISHE-J: The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 9(3). Marino, M., Lhuillery, S., Parrotta, P., & Sala, D. (2016). Additionality or crowding-out? An overall evaluation of public R&D subsidy on private R&D expenditure. Research Policy, 45(9), 1715–1730. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.respol.2016.04.009 Márquez, G. G. (1996). Por un país al alcance de los niños. Bogotá: Villegas Editores. Mazzucato, M. (2015). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths (revised). PublicAffairs. Mazzucato, M., & Penna, C. C. R. (2016). Beyond market failures: The market creating and shaping roles of state investment banks. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 19(4), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/17487870.2016. 1216416 Mazzucato, M. (2017). Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy: Opportunities for Latin America. Scoping Paper. BID. Mazzucato, M. (2018). Missions: Mission-oriented research & innovation in the European Union. European Commission. Mazzucato, M., & Robinson, D. K. (2018). Co-creating and directing Innovation Ecosystems? NASA’s changing approach to public-private partnerships in low-earth orbit. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 166–177. MINTIC. (2014). Informe de gestión al Congreso de la República de Colombia 2014. Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones de Colombia. Recuperado de https://www.mintic.gov.co/portal/604/articles7294_doc_pdf.pdf MINTIC. (2015). Informe de gestión al Congreso de la República de Colombia 2015. Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones de Colombia. Recuperado de https://www.mintic.gov.co/portal/604/articles13320_doc_pdf.pdf MINTIC. (2016). Informe de gestión al Congreso de la República de Colombia 2016. Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones de Colombia Recuperado de https://www.mintic.gov.co/portal/604/articles15817_doc_pdf.pdf

54

I. D. HERNÁNDEZ ET AL.

MINTIC. (2017). Vive Digital. Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones de Colombia. Recuperado de http://www.mintic.gov. co/portal/vivedigital/612/w3-article-19654.html Moncayo, E. (2018). Las políticas regionales de ciencia, tecnología e innovación en Colombia: surgimiento, evolución y balance de la situación actual. Revista Ópera, 23, 185–208. Recuperado de https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co. Montenegro, I. (2017, octubre 12). Ciencia e innovación: demanda insatisfecha y riesgos gravísimos. Recuperado 24 de septiembre de 2018, de https://www.las 2orillas.co/ciencia-e-innovacion-demanda-insatisfecha-y-riesgos-gravisimos/ Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., & Martin, B. R. (2010). Technology policy and global warming: Why new policy models are needed (or why putting new wine in old bottles won’t work). Research Policy, 39(8), 1011–1023. Ospina, J. M. (2017, julio 26). La política en la alcantarilla. Periódico El Espectador, Bogotá. Recuperado de https://www.elespectador.com/opinion/lapolitica-en-la-alcantarilla-columna-705094 Orozco, L., Villaveces, J., Ordonez-Matamoros, G., & Moreno, G. (2019). Innovation policy and governance networks on national innovation systems. 17th International Conference of Scientiometrics & Informetrics. ISSI2019, Roma. Recuperado de: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335611 918_Innovation_policy_and_governance_networks_on_national_innovation_ systems Pearce, D., Barbier, E., & Markandya, A. (2013). Sustainable development: Economics and environment in the Third World. Routledge. Ramírez, M., Boni, A., Magro, E., Obando, C., Vélez, M., & Olaya, A. (2018). Conceptos y nociones de innovación transformativa. En: M. Ramírez y L. Pinzón (Compiladores). Orientaciones para la formulación de políticas regionales de innovación transformativa en Colombia. Departamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación, Colciencias. Recuperado de http://ocyt.org.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/orientaciones-formul acion-politicas-regionales-transformativas.pdf Restrepo, C. (2006). Medellín una ciudad que se transforma. La gobernanza democrática: Un nuevo enfoque para los grandes retos urbanos y regionales. Consejería de Gobernación. Salazar, M. (2017). The Colombian system of science, technology and innovation in transition: how governance is being affected. In: Research Handbook on Innovation Governance for Emerging Economies, chapter 8 (pp. 232–264). Edward Elgar Publishing. Recuperado de https://ideas.repec.org/h/elg/eec hap/15643_8.html Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47 (9), 1554–1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011 Veeduría de Medellín. (2017). Balance de la gestión de los planes de desarrollo de Medellín 1995–2015. Recuperado de https://veeduriamedellin.org.co/ima ges/informe20-aos.pdf

CHAPTER 4

Innovation Policies for Inclusive and Sustainable Development: Insights from the Central American Region Isabel Bortagaray and Carlos Aguirre-Bastos

4.1

Introduction

During the 1980s and 1990s, the Central American countries have moved toward an accelerated liberalization process, which leads to exacerbated social exclusion and weakened ongoing STI policy development efforts. The application of the reforms partially overcame the high poverty levels of the past. However, the rate of poverty reduction remains slow, due to a lack of a common theoretical and empirical grounding, and each country operating its specific social programs in relative isolation from other policies (Hall et al., 2014). In this context, the present socioeconomic conditions exacerbated by corruption and high territorial heterogeneity,

I. Bortagaray (B) Universidad de La República, Montevideo, Uruguay C. Aguirre-Bastos Secretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación, Panama City, Panama © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Ordónez-Matamoros et al. (eds.), Policy and Governance of Science, Technology, and Innovation, Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80832-7_4

55

56

I. BORTAGARAY AND C. AGUIRRE-BASTOS

and further enhanced by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemics, emerge as key development challenges. The heterogeneity of the countries in the Central American region is notorious. The differences in population size, surface area, and income levels are very profound. Table 4.1 shows some of the main characteristics of the countries in the region. Panama’s per capita income is far from the rest of its neighbors. In 2018 it joined the high-income level countries, together with Chile and Uruguay in Latin America. However, when considering income inequality, the country has one of the largest GINI coefficients (49.9%) in the world. The other countries show also high GINI indices and most of them share high poverty levels when compared to other countries in the Latin American region. Poverty is especially acute in rural areas and in indigenous communities. This situation, together with natural disasters, is Table 4.1 Brief characterization of the Central American countries Population Area Per capita (thousand GDP (PPP, 20171 km2 )1 current international dollars)1 2017 Costa Rica El Salvador Guatemala

4.91

51.1

16,230

6.38

21

7550

16.91

108.9

8020

Honduras

9.27

112.5

4640

Nicaragua

6.22

130.4

5690

Panama

4.1

75.4

22,230

10.77

48.7

15,330

Dominican Republic

Sources (1) The World Bank Group (2019) (2) RICYT (2020)

GINI Gross Coefficient expenditure 2019 /1 on R&D by GNP (GERD/GNP) % /2 48.2 (2019) 38.8 (2019) 48.3 (2014) 48.2 (2019) 46.2 (2014) 49.8 (2019) 41.9 (2019)

Number of Researchers per 1000 economically active population /2

0.39% (2018) 1.74 (2018) 0.16% (2018) 0.31 (2018) 0.03% (2018) 0.06 (2018) 0.04% (2017) 0.13 (2017) n/d

0.34 (2012)

0.15% (2017) 0.31 (2017) n/d

n/d

4

INNOVATION POLICIES FOR INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE …

57

one of the key triggers for the current extensive migration patterns, which have increasingly intensified and diversified (Carrasco & Suárez, 2018). One other Central America challenge is the existing disparity in the participation of women and men in the labor market. In 2016, the average participation rate of men in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, and the Dominican Republic (excluding Nicaragua because of lack of gender-disaggregated data) was 77.7% relative to 46.6% for women (ECLAC, 2017). The female unemployment rate is higher, even when their participation in the labor market is considerably lower than that of men. Data for 2016 indicate that the unemployment rate in Costa Rica was 13.8% relative to 6.9% for men, 10.7% compared to 5.1% for men in Honduras, and 7.9% as opposed to 3.6% for men in the Dominican Republic. El Salvador was the only country with higher levels of unemployment for men in 8.1 and 5.3% for women (CEPAL, 2017). National development plans tackle some of these issues. An ECLAC study (2017) shows that in development plans in the countries, gender is transversally integrated, except for Costa Rica (further discussed in Sect. 4.3.5) and the Dominican Republic where a specific perspective for gender equality is also established. The gender gap is extremely costly for Latin America, as illustrated in the Mexican case where if gender inequality would no longer exist in the promotion of senior academicians, scientific productivity would increase by 17–20% (López-Bassols et al., 2018). All the countries in the region have defined their STI policies and strategic plans, although with different emphases, scope, objectives, approaches, and guiding principles. An overview of weaknesses and strengths in STI in the Latin American region has been reported by Dutrenit et al. (2021), with specific references to the Central American countries. In terms of STI efforts, Costa Rica is notoriously distant from the rest of the countries, both in its level of investment in R&D in relation to GDP, and in the number of researchers per thousand people in the economically active population. Moreover, in general terms, Costa Rica leads the efforts and results in science, technology, and innovation in the region (RICYT, 2020). The following sections briefly describe the countries in the region, frame the discussion on STI policies and their directionality, focusing on inclusive and sustainable development issues and then discuss some experiences in the application of policy instruments

58

I. BORTAGARAY AND C. AGUIRRE-BASTOS

aimed at building capacities and opportunities for science, technology, and innovation.

4.2 Countries’ Overview of Institutions and Policies All countries have defined (or redefined) their institutional arrangement for STI, except for El Salvador that is now in such process. Furthermore, they have established policies and extensive strategic plans for the development of STI, in some case separating science and technology from innovation. Several of these STI organizations not only define policy but are at the same time granting institutions, while in other countries these are distinguished tasks. Whether to go in one or another direction, is a recurrent and ongoing discussion (Dalvenne & Thoreau, 2017). The STI systems, policies, and plans have also been externally evaluated in some of the countries: Panama’s last two plans (2010–2015 and 2015–2019) were evaluated by OECD (2015) and UNCTAD (2019) respectively; OECD (2017) evaluated Costa Rica, and in the case of the Dominican Republic, OECD (2019) conducted an extensive production transformation policy review, that included STI. Although the findings of the reviews are of course different from country to country, all coincide that despite the extensive policy learning process that has taken place, the countries face structural challenges, requiring to enhance and broaden the basis for productivity growth by strengthening the innovation systems and enhancing the role of STI in addressing their national development plans. Particularly important along the institutional and governance aspects of STI, is the need to enhance the role of STI in sustainability and inclusion, although some issues of these aspects are being treated as will be discussed further on in this contribution. Despite the weakness stated above, it is also clear that during the past years the Central American countries gave growing priority to STI in their development plans. Accordingly, STI policies have been defined and implemented. Some countries modified their horizontal mechanisms, creating others of sectoral nature, thus defining a strategic direction toward productivity and competitiveness. Other countries apply specific policies and incentive mechanisms to develop strategic technologies and yet others implement scientific and technological funds to expand endogenous activities. Approaches toward facing grand challenges and

4

INNOVATION POLICIES FOR INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE …

59

defining territorial-regional innovation systems are also evident in some cases. OECD recognizes that despite the efforts made, the aggregate results of policy are not improving as can be expected. OECD (2016) recognizes that in general, the countries in Latin America lag not only those in the OECD group but also concerning other emerging economies. In Costa Rica, in 2012 the Ministry of Science and Technology absorbed the area of telecommunications and later in 2015 government launched the “National Plan for Science, Technology, and Innovation (2015–2018)” and the “National Plan for the Development of Telecommunications,” which was followed by the “Institutional Strategic Plan 2019 – 2025” MICITT (2019), to transform the country into a connected society, by the inclusive access, use and appropriation of ICTs, and the development of a stronger knowledge base, closely connected to sustainable development. In February the National Assembly approved the creation of the “Costa Rica Science and Technology Promotional Agency” to replace the National Research Council, as a funding organization. In 2019, the new government that took office in El Salvador, approved the National Development Plan for 2019–2024 (Cuscatlan). The Plan aims to achieve sustainable development through the adoption of an improved stable business climate, attract FDI and facilitate trade. The Plan also aims at the improvement of the social condition through traditional sectorial approaches. Cuscatlan advocates using technology to create a new governance system. It proposes institutional reorganization in STI, a process that is yet to be finished. The main idea is to create two ministries, the first a Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology and the second a Ministry of Innovation and Modernization of the State. In Nicaragua, the National Council of Science and Technology (CONICYT) is the agency responsible for STI development. The agency is chaired by the Vice Presidency. In the council are present representatives of business, government, academic, and civil society sectors. The existing political crisis in the country has weakened the presence of this council in the decision-making process and the development of research and innovation. The National Human Development Plan 2012–2016 included science and technology along two lines; (i) for innovation and entrepreneurship for productive transformation and adaptation to climate

60

I. BORTAGARAY AND C. AGUIRRE-BASTOS

change; and (ii) promotion of Information and Communication Technologies to leverage the integral development of the country. In the context of the crisis, the National Academy of Sciences to issue a strong declaration in favor of the research and university communities and civil society.1 In Guatemala, the governance of the National Science and Technology System rests with the National Council of Science and Technology (CONCYT), chaired by the Vice President of the Republic. This Council is composed of representatives of the political and government, academic, and productive-private sectors. The National Secretariat of Science and Technology (SENACYT) is the body responsible for supporting and executing the decisions emanating from CONCYT and operating the funds. In Honduras in 2014 the country established the Honduran Institute of Science, Technology, and Innovation, which, under the coordination of the National Secretariat of Science, Technology, and Innovation (SENACIT), is in charge of the implementation of activities that promote the development of National System of STI. In 2020 a draft national STI development plan with a vision toward 2040 was prepared and is now under consideration of the government for its approval. In Panama since 1997, the National Secretariat for Science, Technology, and Innovation was established In January 2020 the National Strategic Plan for STI was adopted and now makes part of the government’s new National Strategic Development Plan (2019–2024). This latter Plan gives the fight against poverty and inequity a priority. In the previous STI National Plan (2014–2019) priority was given to put the national innovation system at the service of economic competitiveness and sustainable and inclusive development. The new STI Plan stresses the need to further develop policy instruments and increase the expenditure for R&D up to 0.33% of GDP, from 0.16% in 2019, for the country to face grand challenges with science and innovation. In the Dominican Republic, the STI system is coordinated by the Vice Ministry of Science and Technology, of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology, responsible for policy formulation and for supporting and executing approved programs. Governance rests with the National Council of Higher Education, Science and Technology.

1 https://www.accmed.org/pdf/nicaraguan_academy_message_28_april_2018_eng.

4

INNOVATION POLICIES FOR INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE …

61

The Ministry and its related coordination and implementation bodies are mostly linked to the scientific community and the support for education, training and scientific research. On the other hand, several institutional mechanisms have been established dealing with economic competitiveness and innovation.

4.3 Directionality of STI Policies: Science, Technology, and Innovation for an Inclusive and Sustainable Development Explicit and sustained support for STI is widely claimed as a mean for more prosperous economies and societies. Innovation can also have adverse effects and could even play a role in increasing inequalities at different levels (Cozzens & Thakur, 2014). The directionality of STI efforts is therefore key and should be explicitly used to favor development processes that tend to be more inclusive and sustainable. As discussed by several authors (Arocena & Sutz, 2012; Cozzens & Sutz, 2012; Sutz, 2010), STI policies aimed at improving competitiveness, necessary for economic growth, are not enough, it is necessary to explicitly aim at more comprehensive, sustainable and socially inclusive development processes as indicated in the Sustainable Development Agenda. The systemic innovation approach is, on the other hand, instrumental in such process, in which innovation is understood as an embedded-social process resulting from the interaction of multiple and diverse actors, based on a combination of learning, exploration and search, and strongly dependent on the institutional environment (Andersen & Lundvall, 1988; Johnson, 1988, Lundvall & Lorenz, 2007). For building STI capacities and opportunities, institutions, and their specific trajectories, that is how institutions evolve, whether they complement or contradict with each other, how dense the institutional environment is, with what levels of inertia and rigidity they operate, what are the main vehicles of institutional change, and so on, are key to STI development; also of great importance are the actors and their relationships, e.g., how connected they are, how and for what purpose they are linked, what types of relationships they shape, and how all these (co)evolve at the system level greatly matter. The transition from science, technology, and innovation systems to inclusive and sustainable systems requires systemic changes that involve not only new technologies, but also changes in

62

I. BORTAGARAY AND C. AGUIRRE-BASTOS

markets, in production practices, in users and their consumption patterns, and also changes at the level of policy and cultural dynamics (Geels, 2004). The systemic and complex nature of science, technology, and innovation calls for special attention when designing and implementing policies. Although it may seem obvious that systemic phenomenon needs systemic approaches and policies (i.e., systemic understanding of the problem, a focus on interactions within and between systems, complementarities and contradictions, etc.), policies often are linearly structured, assuming that improving the supply side suffices. A structural socio-productive change based on STI involves transformations in collective capacities for learning, organization, production, and incorporation of knowledge to create innovations, as well as in the opportunities for transforming those capacities into productive changes and new practices that contribute to sustainability and inclusiveness. Institutional environments are of relevance when seeking change, both as a catalyst for opportunities or blocking them. STI for inclusive and sustainable development depends, to a large extent, on the institutional environment, and the levels of (dis)agreements and visions of the various actors involved with their development (Bortagaray, 2007, 2016). This approach is particularly relevant in the case of small countries with constrained critical mass, economies highly dependent on international dynamics, with productive structures divorced from knowledge production and use, and societies that do not yet value knowledge or rely on STI to generate transformational dynamics in their productive structures, and where endogenous development is vital. This is the case of many countries in Latin America, as well as Central American. This transition into more complex approaches and instruments which simultaneously address STI capacity building, environmental sustainability, and social inclusion is increasingly part of recent discourses, and analytical and action STI policy perspectives. R&D and systemic innovation policy approaches need to be integrated with transformative ones, framed by current social and environmental challenges, such as the SDGs. In that integrative framework, innovation is a form of system-level functioning and search, guided by social and environmental objectives, informed by experience and learning, and by the commitment to alter existing institutional configurations to de-routinize them in the direction of meeting societal challenges. Thus, innovation processes must be inclusive, experimental and seek to change the direction of socio-technical

4

INNOVATION POLICIES FOR INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE …

63

systems across all dimensions. Not only active involvement in STI policies is necessary, but also in politics (Schot & Steinmueller, 2018). The analysis and understanding of STI policies distinguishing between horizontal policy instruments, i.e., those aimed at strengthening organizational-level capacities (including universities, companies, etc.) and the system general functioning, and vertical instruments that apply to particular sectors are of great importance (Benavente et al., 2014; Peres & Primi, 2009). The next sections of this contribution concentrate on that discussion, with emphasis on the Central America region. 4.3.1

Horizontal and Vertical STI Policies in the Central American Region

Strengthening of Horizontal Research Capacity Public support for scientific research is a must at the global level, as well as regionally where almost all research funding is public. Regional policy instruments for promoting scientific capacity are quite consolidated, and for a long time they constituted the only STI policy tools available to the Central American countries (Mercado & Casas, 2015; Sagasti, 2011). Some of these traditional tools deal with research mobility and training, scholarships, support for research projects, and infrastructure, the promotion of research centers of excellence. Although with differences in their execution modalities and specific purposes, they share the objective of developing local academic capacities and facilitating their internationalization. Other more recent types of efforts to deepen national research systems relate to the categorization of researchers and an incentive for their commitment, as it has been implemented in Panama2 and the Dominican Republic, again with differences. Most countries in the region have created “digital agendas” to democratize technological access, reduce the digital divide and improve ICT education Castillo et al. (2016). With disparities in scope, objectives, strategy, and operation modality, several countries have also implemented programs connected to ICTs access, education, and appropriation, such is the case of “Infoplazas” in Panama, and the presidential programs “Una niña, un niño, una computadora” and “Ensanche” in El Salvador.

2 For more information see https://www.senacyt.gob.pa/category/sni/, accessed on May 5th, 2019.

64

I. BORTAGARAY AND C. AGUIRRE-BASTOS

The Commission for the Development of Science and Technology for Central America and Panama (CTCAP) with the aid of international cooperation has contributed to the support of national and regional investment programs on STI infrastructure. This regional platform is expected to serve in the future to further promote research capacities at the regional level, like centers of excellence or inter-regional research institutes. In the same direction, inter-regional spaces for STI policy learning and dissemination of experiences in formulation, monitoring, and evaluation capacities could be promoted, as well as at the level of governance of the STI national systems. Looking into the future, regional and international alliances to promote R&D and technology transfer are also fundamental pillars that call for action plans in the region Castillo et al. (2016). Similarly, infrastructure and platforms for accessing publications, open access, in particular, could be part of a regional collaborative strategy. The same could be encouraged in terms of resources for the proposals and academic project evaluation, by promoting the creation of common pools of evaluators for the different STI agencies in Central America. This type of organization could foster spaces for experimentation in policy design and implementation (Breznitz & Ornston, 2013; Crespi et al., 2014) and could facilitate processes leading to the “self-discovery” of new problems. Support for articulation and coordination capacities is also advisable, particularly in fragmented systems, like those that exist in the region (Crespi et al., 2014). Vertical Mission-Oriented Research Policies As clearly indicated by Amilcar Herrera in 1995, one of the key problems of Latin America is the existing gap or disconnection between R&D systems and the societies to which they belong. This feature is further acute when science and technology are not considered valuable or key to national projects, and when it coexists with a large gap between the explicit scientific policy promoted by national S&T organizations (at a formal and declarative level), and an implicit policy, which for a long time has prevailed in practice, sustained by a political class that did not seek to create truly autonomous and strong R&D systems (Herrera, 1975). This scenario has significantly changed in the last decade at the institutional level, though some structural characteristic persists. An institutional environment directly linked to STI has been put in place, with explicit plans and policies (Lemerchand, 2015; Padilla-Pérez & Gaudin, 2014;

4

INNOVATION POLICIES FOR INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE …

65

Rivas et al., 2014). The weakness of knowledge demand and use from the productive sector is still there; technological development is often assimilated to imported devices, and the fostering of an endogenous development process based on STI is still rare, as is the vision that the entire government apparatus needs to be involved, and that STI for development should be transversally and systemically promoted. A political commitment is essential to make STI policy a State policy, responding to local problems in a global dialogue, with the commitment and support of Central America’s societies. Problem- or mission-oriented policies are one of the instruments used to favor the linkages with local needs. In the context of Panama’s 2015–2019 CTI Strategic Plan, the National Secretariat of STI has experimented mission-oriented research and development projects, contemplating the strategic areas defined by the government’s strategic plan and a public policy dialogue (SENACYT, 2016). These efforts also relate to the Innovation for Social Inclusion and Productivity Program of IDB, which aim to strengthen the innovation and research capacities of public and private research centers in the areas of logistics, transportation, sustainability/energy, and water. Costa Rica has a long trajectory of research institutes in key economic sectors such as the National Banana Corporation (CORBANA) or the Costa Rican Coffee Institute where the mission-oriented research approach is materialized. By 2050 Costa Rica plans to be the first decarbonized economy on the planet MIDEPLAN and Costa Rica Gobierno del Bicentenario (2018). However, this very relevant and ambitious goal does not seem to be intimately linked to science, technology, and innovation, at least not explicitly. To reach a decarbonized economy, or one with low carbon emissions, it states the need to reduce fossil fuel consumption and advance in a sustainable and self-sufficient renewable energy system (MIDEPLAN & Costa Rica Gobierno del Bicentenario, 2018). Other countries like Dominican Republic or Guatemala also intend to move in the same direction, creating research institutes oriented to sectors that require deepening their capabilities and knowledge-intensive efforts to improve their competitiveness (Navarro et al., 2016). In these cases, STI policies are linked and seek to respond to specific social and productive problems. However, one of the recurring challenges is the divorce between science, technology, and innovation policies and other policies like environmental, industrial, agricultural, social, and health policies. Thus, one of the weaknesses in the region is that even

66

I. BORTAGARAY AND C. AGUIRRE-BASTOS

though STI policies have recently conquered their own policy domain, they are quite distant from other policy spaces like health, industry, agriculture, health or housing, to name a few, and have not been able to permeate these other policy spaces, which are key for turning STI into a developmental instrument, and moving into the Sustainable Development Agenda. This isolation and divorce in a double sense strongly limit both the efforts made, and the results obtained: policies tend to run in parallel, wasting opportunities to nurture virtuous development processes. This lack of a systemic conceptualization and implementation of STI policies as development policies contributes to a silo approach to solving problems, a heuristic that far from transformative lead to a leaking policy system, in which efforts are not optimized, and STI legitimacy is harmed. 4.3.2

Strengthening STI Demand—SMMEs Oriented Policies

Micro, small and medium enterprises (SMMEs) comprise most of the productive fabric of Latin America. These enterprises are key for developing sustainable and inclusive development in the region, but today they are particularly weak in their capacity to absorb knowledge, largely due to the lack of professionals in their staff. In Latin America and the Caribbean, SMMEs account for more than 60% of employment, although their share in GDP reaches 28 and 8.4% of exports Dini & Stumpo (2019) (see Graphs 4.1 and 4.2). Productivity differences between Latin American SMMEs compared to European is quite large: Average productivity of microenterprises is 6% in LA 1.5 0.5 9.6 Microenterprises Small firms 88.4

Medium firms Large firms

Graph 4.1 Latin America: distribution of firms by size, 2016 (Source Dini & Stumpo, 2019)

4

INNOVATION POLICIES FOR INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE …

67

27 Microenterprises

39

Small firms Medium firms Large firms 20 14 Graph 4.2 Latin America: employment share, 2016 (Source Dini & Stumpo, 2019)

compared to 42% in Europe, 23% for LA small enterprises, and 58% in Europe, while for medium-sized enterprises it is 46% in LA and 76% in Europe (data for 2016). Within Latin America, the largest differences in productivity levels between countries are in medium-sized companies: 22% in Chile and 51% in Brazilian companies (Correa et al., 2019). Micro-enterprises have the lowest relative internal productivity levels compared to other types of companies and the largest gap with their European counterparts. The performance gap between micro and large companies is seven times greater than that observed in Europe. The differences in performance of the different companies’ categories comprising SMMEs in LA are much sharper in relation to their peers in Europe: A medium-size company in Europe has a less than double productivity level compared to that of a microenterprise, while in LA the gap between their productivity is seven times different (Correa et al., 2019). SMMEs relevance in the productive structure of Central American countries has not been accompanied by specific policy instruments to help their productive transformation; on the contrary, a strategic vision has been absent (Dini & Stumpo, 2019). The support of Business Development Centers (BDCs) in Latin America has aimed at strengthening SMEs with mostly public funds Dini (2019). If complemented by an STI perspective closely connected with sustainability strategies in key sectors could strongly reinforce and strategically empower SMEs in the region.

68

I. BORTAGARAY AND C. AGUIRRE-BASTOS

Data and studies of these companies’ dynamics are missing, which hinder the potential of designing policy instruments that are better aligned with SMMEs innovation problems and opportunities (Correa et al., 2019). In Panama, public and private innovation support programs for exports of SMEs are scarce and smaller than in Costa Rica or the Dominican Republic3 Monge (2018). In these three countries, international cooperation dedicated to funding initiatives to promote innovation-based exports has been crucial. In Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic, public and private non-reimbursable and co-funding instruments have been designed to enhance innovation capabilities for export in SMEs (Monge, 2018), while in Panama a Plan for the promotion of SMMEs has been formulated for the 2017–2022 period (Dopeso et al., 2017). Costa Rica has several instruments to support SMEs: two nonreimbursable (80%), co-funded programs promoted by MICITT are the Innovation and Human Capital for Competitiveness Program (PINN), and the Innovation Fund of the Small and Medium Enterprise Support Program (Propyme) (Monge, 2018). The latter focuses on the funding of activities for improving the management capacity and competitiveness of the country’s SMEs through innovation and technological development, including innovation and entrepreneurship projects MICITT (2019). MICITT works in coordination with other public and private organizations related to SMEs, such as the Foreign Trade Agency (PROCOMER), the Chamber of Exporters (Cadexco), the Industry Chamber of Costa Rica (CICR), and with the National Learning Institute (INA) in promoting SMEs training activities, participation in fairs, country branding, technology transfer, among others. However, coordination and complementarity between these initiatives are missing (Monge, 2018). 4.3.3

Technological Extensionism

One of the instruments used to promote knowledge dissemination and use and the build-up of technological capabilities in small and mediumsized enterprises is technological extensionism, inspired by the agricultural model, widely used in the region a few decades ago to disseminate agricultural practices linked to the green revolution. The service provider 3 Definitions of micro, small, and medium size enterprises vary across the three countries Monge 2018.

4

INNOVATION POLICIES FOR INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE …

69

proactiveness for stimulating customized technological solutions is one of this instrument characteristics (Rogers, 2013). It is particularly relevant and attractive in contexts such as those of the region, where most small and medium companies do not involve professional staff in their personnel, and in consequence, the lack of professionals reinforces the weak demand for knowledge, which is also typical of these countries. Therefore, in the case of SMMEs, is vital to have access to instruments that bridge the gap between knowledge supply and demand, and that contribute to the recognition and identification of technological needs. Several countries have implemented technological extensionism (Shapira et al., 2015), though not in the Central American region. 4.3.4

Public Procurement and Innovation

Public procurement4 is one of the mechanisms used to strengthen STI demand from the productive sector and SMEs. Moreover, public procurement is an endogenous development instrument, widely used in industrialized countries. A distinction can be made between public procurement for innovation (PPI), a demand-side instrument fostered by a public organization in need of meeting certain functions or problems that cannot be solved with a new or improved product within a reasonable time (Edquist et al., 2015), and innovation’s public procurement when the aim is to induce innovation by building new capabilities and opportunities for innovation, without necessarily seeking new products (Edquist & ZabalaIturriagagoitia, 2012). Accompanying these demand policies with supply instruments that provide additional stimuli for private investment in R&D is key so that demand policies can contribute to increase incentives and reduce uncertainty in innovation processes (Guerzoni & Raitieri, 2015). Since 2009, organizations such as the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the Marrakech Task Force on Sustainable Public

4 Public procurement is formally integrated in the multilateral trade agenda since 1979,

and the juridical instrument of the WTO is the Agreement on Government Procurement. Until 2015 no country from Latin America and the Caribbean are integrated in that Agreement. Brazil is in the process of acceding and Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica and Panama are observers. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gproc_e/mem obs_e.htm, accessed on March 20, 2021.

70

I. BORTAGARAY AND C. AGUIRRE-BASTOS

Procurement (MTF on SPP) have been pushing for the building of capabilities on sustainable public procurement. Costa Rica, Colombia, Chile and Uruguay have received assistance in this context, while other countries such as Argentina, Barbados, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, and Panama have also initiated programs and initiatives on sustainable public procurement (SELA, 2015). In El Salvador, specific guidelines are in place to incorporate environmental and social criteria in public procurement, as it was done before in relation to the prevention and eradication of child labor. It seeks to coordinate SPP with a wide range of policy tools in different domains Fonseca, et al. 2016. This effort considers the importance of strengthening SMMEs supply’s capacities, which account for 99% of the country’s economy. Through agencies, the government annually awards economic incentives to SMMEs as a way to improve their business competitiveness, to value excellence in productive innovations, quality management, and productive social innovations (social innovation, creation of local businesses, and rural community tourism) (Fonseca et al., 2016). In some cases, this public procurement policy is in conjunction with instruments on gender equality. In those cases, the dual goal of generating the least environmental impact with the best social impact is claimed (Red Interamericana de Compras Públicas [RICG], 2019). But again, as mentioned above, the advancement in sustainable public procurement in the Central American region do not explicitly incorporate the objective of capacity building in STI on suppliers. STI policy tools are in their own domain, disconnected from others, which are vital development tools, and could virtuously nurture and reinforce an STI-based sustainable and inclusive development process. As an illustration, in England five initiatives were articulated in this regard: innovation procurement plans, the (reformulated) small business research initiative, the commitment to forward procurement, a new scheme to link private and public demand, and the Department of Health’s program for the adoption of innovative technologies (Uyarra et al., 2014). 4.3.5

STI Policies for Inclusive Development

The instrumental potential of STI for development and the need to contemplate their distributive effects when formulating and implementing

4

INNOVATION POLICIES FOR INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE …

71

policies is gaining momentum. The concern on fostering inclusive innovation policies, both by seeking innovation-based solutions to the problems of the more vulnerable (“innovation for social inclusion”) and by including these communities in the processes through which innovations are pursued (“inclusive innovation”) (Bortagaray & OrdóñezMatamoros, 2012; Cozzens & Sutz, 2012). In the case of Panama, one of its key challenges is the deep inequalities in access to tertiary education. Among the population of the highest socioeconomic quintile, 6 out of 10 start tertiary education, and 60% of them can finish it. In contrast, in the lowest quintile, 5% start tertiary education, from which 19% of them finish. SENACYT has proposed a program (“Hacia la U”) to bring university education closer to the vulnerable communities, supporting the access and permanence of young people from indigenous communities to the university. The gender gap against women is an endemic problem, both to the region and the world. Moving forward requires explicit and sustained policies, which is one of Costa Rica’s objectives as a response to the unequal participation of women and men to the attraction, education, training, quality employment, and research in STI, as well as in the use and benefits of STI outputs. In particular, it seeks to promote “equality in the participation of women in relation to men in the attraction, permanence, education, training, quality employment and research, in the different fields of science, technology and innovation, to facilitate the benefits of scientifictechnological accomplishments” MICITT (2017). To advance in this objective, changes are needed on several fronts: from the social ideology to education, and labor dynamics to eliminate those factors associated with income levels, mobility and promotion possibilities, in the private and public sectors, salaries, access to and permanence in more demanded and better-paid careers, opportunities for postgraduate studies. This objective and the corresponding actions are framed in five intervention areas (MICITT, 2017): – Attracting Women to Science, Technology, and Innovation – Training and retention of women in Science, Technology, and Innovation careers – Promotion of research and employment of women in Science, Technology, and Innovation – Social appropriation of science with a gender perspective – Sustainability and follow-up.

72

I. BORTAGARAY AND C. AGUIRRE-BASTOS

4.4

Discussion and Conclusions

Aguirre-Bastos (2019) has argued that governance is a less explored problem affecting STI policy definition and implementation in several developing countries. Governance is key to the appropriate definition of policies and their implementation. In many countries, STI institutions were designed to run the linear model of innovation, and these find today difficult to shape new policy conditions required to stimulate and guide research and innovation to face grand challenges. Such difficulties are due to a great extent to the lack of understanding of the systemic nature of the challenges and an understanding of the innovation system itself as a complex system. The complexity of innovation systems is due to several characteristics of the process: (i) presence of new highly specialized and non-specialized actors; (ii) different institutional levels; (iii) different territorial levels; and (iv) rapid pace of technological change. These characteristics require that governance of the STI system looks to the knowledge exchange processes that take place, thus be set to promote the innovation process using weak coordination mechanisms much absent in linear model institutions. Linear organizations are not prepared to deal with rapid change. It is then obvious that due to nonlinearities in complex innovation systems adaptive political requirements and adaptive governance must replace master plans and long-term fixed policy targets. Converging and emerging technologies add to the complexity, requiring transformative policies, not only because of their technoeconomic impacts but also due to their increasingly interwoven connection to the social environment in which they operate. Linear organizations are not used to such types of intervention logic. Further, rigid regulations complicate the governance of a system that should permanently be adjusting itself to rapid changes in the global and local environments. Given the complexity of STI systems, governance requires robust policies, as decisions and social structures should withstand the occurrence of uncertain future scenarios. In a complex system, causality is not always given due mainly to existing nonlinearities, and therefore, impacts of STI policy interventions cannot be predicted, causing troubles for linearoriented policy-makers, used to well-defined effects, as used in past policy decisions, making the legitimization of traditional policy more and more obsolete.

4

INNOVATION POLICIES FOR INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE …

73

The Central American countries have adopted an innovation system approach to policy without changing their governance mechanisms. In the supply-side approach, the excessively centralized institutional set-up that exists does not allow different stakeholders, such as universities and enterprises, standards and intellectual property organizations, to feel part of the system and thus consider STI policy is to be managed by the central organization, and that regulations apply only to it and not to the system as a whole; in practice, regulations govern the institutions and not the system. The structural challenges associated with the traditional supply-side approach, together with other weaknesses have become difficult problems to deal with. Several policy organizations are very weak in terms of financial and human infrastructures and existing institutional fragmentation is also part of the problem. Such limitations together with the inert behavior of agents in the innovation system continue to challenge the way to policymaking. Rivas et al. (2014) argue that institutional reforms that took place in LAC have had positive impacts, particularly with the creation of specialized agencies and specific funds, but also consider necessary to advance in the adoption of the countries’ own models of governance and institutional strengthening in order to improve definition and implementation, to correct coordination failures, reduce policy overlap and structure a stronger capacity for evidence-based decision-making. Frequent institutional changes have also affected the performance of innovation systems and the policymaking institutions in many developing countries. Padilla-Pérez and Gaudin (2014) comparing the STI systems in Central America, note not only their heterogeneity, but especially the instability of the institutional framework that should orient the design and implementation of public policies, committed human and financial resources, quality of research and teaching, and innovative capacity of enterprises. Many developing countries continue experimenting and learning by trial-and-error, introducing, extracting, remodeling tools intending to promote innovation, with limited success. In many countries, the capacity of governance of innovation has been diminished by the strong influence exerted by scientific elites over the decision-making processes. In several countries, there is no institution dealing fully with innovation and as such, policies do not transmit strong signals to enterprises to risk in innovation processes, a situation that also

74

I. BORTAGARAY AND C. AGUIRRE-BASTOS

affects other stakeholders in the innovation system that cannot define their own strategies for supporting innovation processes. In the end when both processes are governed by the same institution neither research nor innovation is advanced adequately because of their conceptual and operative differences. This seems particularly important considering the rate at which knowledge is being created and the growing demands posed by sustainability and inclusion that defy static innovation systems, and particularly when considering innovation as a contextualized process, accumulative, non-lineal and systemic, coordinated to local, regional, and national strategies capable of stimulating knowledge in the production structures. The correct definition of innovation is key to policymaking and implementation, and governance of the innovation system. Examination of various statements, policies, and strategies adopted in developing regions shows the need to better identify the different concepts around innovation that are handled today, particularly differentiating economic from social innovations (Rehfeld & Terstriep, 2017). Though published more than ten years ago, IADB (2010) caveat still applies: Companies fundamental role in transforming knowledge into new products coexist with their vision of innovation mainly as the acquisition of capital goods and furthermore with a sort of “corporate culture [which gets] away from endogenous innovation.” On the other hand, the definition of an explicit research and innovation policy that can respond to the grand challenges of sustainability and inclusion needs to be considered a priority in most of the Central American countries. Such policy to be successful requires that the innovation— inclusion nexus be clearly understood, and existing gaps closed. For this to occur, it needs to help address the double dimension of the innovationinclusion nexus: inclusive innovation (the social process through which innovations are generated—participatory, consultative, etc.) and innovation for social inclusion (the outcomes of innovations: types of innovation, innovation for whom, etc.), in an integrated manner (Bortagaray & Ordoñez-Matamoros, 2012). Aguirre-Bastos et al. (2021) have extensively analyzed the role of foresight as an instrument able to close the existing gaps in the complex innovation—inclusion nexus. It is argued that closing these gaps requires a powerful tool to define policies and strategies, and that foresight (particularly participatory foresight) is a policy tool that promises to be very

4

INNOVATION POLICIES FOR INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE …

75

useful for this purpose. The establishment of forward-looking strategic intelligence mechanisms should become a priority in these countries.

References Aguirre-Bastos, C. (2019). Science and technology in developing countries: Linear model institutions trying to run complex innovation systems. Paper presented to the International Congress on Governance of Science and Innovation. Bogota, Colombia. July 31 to August 2, 2019. Aguirre-Bastos, C., Bortagaray, I., & Weber, M. (2021). The innovationinclusion nexus in developing countries: The role of foresight for shaping new policy approaches. Submitted for publication in Innovation and Development. Andersen, E. S., & Lundvall, B.-A. (1988). Small national systems of innovation facing technological revolutions: An analytical framework. In C. Freeman & B.-A. Lundvall (Eds.), Small countries facing the technological revolution. Pinter. Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2012). Research and innovation policies for social inclusion: Is there an emerging pattern? In H. M. M. Lastres, C. Pietrobelli, R. Caporalli, M. C. Couto Soares, & M. Pessoa de Matos (Eds.), A Nova Geração De Políticas De Desenvolvimento Productivo, Sustentabildade Social E Ambiental (pp. 101–113). BID/BNDES/SESI/CNI. Benavente, J. M., Navarro, J. C., Crespi, G., Martínez, G., Schwartz, L., Cathles, A., Torrico, B., Briceño, B., & Jímenez, M. d. P. (2014). Documento De Marco Sectorial De Innovación, Ciencia Y Tecnología. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID). Bortagaray, I. (2007). The building of agro-biotechnological capabilities in small countries: The cases of Costa Rica, New Zealand and Uruguay. Georgia Institute of Technology. Bortagaray, I. (2016). Políticas De Ciencia, Tecnología, E Innovación Sustentable E Inclusiva En América Latina. In Foro CILAC 2016. UNESCO. Bortagaray, I., & Ordóñez-Matamoros, G. (2012). Introduction to the special issue of the review of policy research: Innovation, innovation policy, and social inclusion in developing countries. Review of Policy Research, 29, 669–671. Breznitz, D., & Ornston, D. (2013). The revolutionary power of peripheral agencies: Explaining radical policy innovation in Finland and Israel. Comparative Political Studies, 46, 1219–1245. Carrasco, I., & Suárez, J. I. (2018). Migración Internacional E Inclusión En América Latina: Análisis De Los Países De Destino Mediante Encuestas De Hogares. CEPAL - Cooperación Alemana. Castillo, M., Rovira, S., Peres, W., Porcile, G., Rodríguez, A., Brossard, F., Rodrigues, M., Patiño, A., & Valderrama, P. (2016). Ciencia, Tecnología E Innovación En La Economía Digital. La Situación De América Latina Y El

76

I. BORTAGARAY AND C. AGUIRRE-BASTOS

Caribe. Unidad De Innovación Y Nuevas Tecnologías. División De Desarrollo Productivo. CEPAL. CEPAL. (2017). El Mercado Laboral En La Subregión De Centroamérica Y La República Dominicana: Realidades Y Retos De La Inserción Laboral Desde Una Perspectiva De Género. CEPAL. Correa, F., Leiva, V., & Stumpo, G. (2019). Mipymes Y Heterogeneidad Estructural En América Latina. In M. Dini & G. Stumpo (Eds.), Mipymes En América Latina. Un Frágil Desempeño Y Nuevos Desafíos Para Las Políticas De Fomento. CEPAL. Cozzens, S., & Sutz, J. (2012). Innovation in informal settings: A research agenda. IDRC. Cozzens, S., & Thakur, D. (2014). Innovation and inequality: Emerging technologies in an unequal world. Edward Elgar. Dalvenne, P., & Thoreau, F. (2017). Dancing without listening to the music: Learning from some failures of the ‘national innovation systems’ in Latin America. In S. Kuhlmann & G. Ordóñez-Matamoros (Eds.), Research handbook on innovation governance for emerging economies: Towards better models (pp. 37–58). Edward Elgar. Dini, M. (2019). Centros De Desarrollo Empresarial En América Latina: Lecciones De Política De Cinco Experiencias Institucionales. In Documentos de proyectos (LC/TS.2019/21). CEPAL. Dini, M., & Stumpo, G. (Eds.). (2019). Mipymes En América Latina. Un Fráfil Desempeño Y Nuevos Desafíos Para Las Políticas De Fomento. Naciones Unidas-CEPAL/Euromipyme/Unión Europea. Dopeso, M. C., Dueñas, J., Pérez, L. M., & Bravo, M. del R. (2017). Política Nacional De Fomento De La Micro, Pequeña Y Mediana Empresa 2017–2022, República De Panamá. ANPYME-Gobierno de la República de Panamá. Dutrenit, G., Aguirre-Bastos, C., Puchet, M., & Salazar, M. (2021). Latin America. In Unesco world science report 2020. UNESCO. Edquist, C., Vonortas, N. S., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., & Edler, J. (Eds.). (2015). Public procurement for innovation. Edward Elgar. Edquist, C., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2012). Public procurement for innovation as mission-oriented policy. Research Policy, 41, 1757–1769. Fonseca, H., Inga, H., Domenech, J., & Salas, J. (2016). Implementando Compras Públicas Sostenibles En El Salvador. In Estudio de Caso. San Salvador. Geels, F. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33, 897–920. Guerzoni, M., & Raitieri, E. (2015). Demand-side vs. supply-side technology policies: Hidden treatment and new empirical evidence on the policy mix. Research Policy, 44, 726–747.

4

INNOVATION POLICIES FOR INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE …

77

Hall, J., Aguirre-Bastos, C., Matos, S., & Silvestre, B. S. (2014). Shaping national innovation systems for inclusive growth in Latin America: Towards a research agenda. Paper presented at the PRIME (Principles for Responsible Management Education), Nicaragua, 28–30 July. Herrera, A. (1975). Los Determinantes Sociales De La Política Científica De América Latina. Política Científica Explícita Y Política Científica Implícita. Redes: Revista de estudios sociales de la ciencia, 2, 117–131. IADB. (2010). Science, technology and innovation in Latin America and the Caribbean, a statistical compendium of indicators. IADB. Johnson, B. (1988). An institutional approach to the small-country problem. In C. Freeman & B.-A. Lundvall (Eds.), Small countries facing the technological revolution. Pinter Publishers. Lemerchand, G. (2015). Latin America. In UNESCO science report: Towards 2030. UNESCO. López-Bassols, V., Grazzi, M., Guillard, C., & Salazar, M. (2018). Las Brechas De Género En Ciencia, Tecnología E Innovación En América Latina Y El Caribe. Resultados De Una Recolección Piloto Y Propuesta Metodológica Para La Medición. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, BID. Lundvall, B.-A., & Lorenz, E. (2007). Modes of innovation and knowledge: Taxonomies in the learning economy. Paper presented at the CAS workshop on Innovation in Firms, Oslo, October 30–November 1. Mercado, A., & Casas, R. (2015). Introducción. In R. Casas & A. Mercado (Eds.), Mirada Iberoamericana a Las Políticas De Ciencia, Tecnología E Innovación. Perspectivas Comparadas (pp. 11–38). CLACSO-CYTED. MICITT. (2017). Política Nacional Para La Igualdad Entre Mujeres Y Hombres En La Formación, El Empleo Y El Disfrute De Los Productos De La Ciencia, Tecnología, Las Telecomunicaciones Y La Innovación 2018–2027 . Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología y Telecomunicaciones (MICITT). MICITT. (2019). Fondo Propyme. Sesión Ordinaria Número Fp-001–2019. MICITT. MIDEPLAN, and Costa Rica Gobierno del Bicentenario. (2018). Costa Rica. Plan Nacional De Desarrollo Y De Inversión Pública Del Bicentenario 2019– 2022. San José de Costa Rica. Monge, R. G. (2018). Innovación Para La Exportación En Las Pymes De Costa Rica, Panamá Y República Dominicana: Instrumentos No Reembolsables Y De Confinanciación. In A. Frohmann, N. Mulder, & X. Olmos (Eds.), Promoción De La Innovación Exportadora: Instrumentos De Apoyo a Las Pymes. CEPAL. Navarro, J. C., Benavente, J. M., & Crespi, G. (2016). The new imperative of innovation: Policy perspectives for Latin America and the Caribbean. IADB. OECD. (2015). Innovation policy in Panama. Design, implementation and evaluation. In Development centre studies. OECD.

78

I. BORTAGARAY AND C. AGUIRRE-BASTOS

OECD. (2016). Promoting an inclusive development in the productivity of Latin America, Better Policies Series. OECD. OECD. (2017). Costa Rica policy review. OECD. OECD. (2019). Production transformation policy review (PTPR) of the dominican republic: Key outcomes of the peer learning group. OECD. Padilla-Pérez, R., & Gaudin, Y. (2014). Science, technologia and innovacion policies in small and developing economies: The case of central America. Research Policy, 43, 749–759. Peres, W., & Primi, A. (2009). Theory and practice of industrial policy. Evidence from the Latin American experience. In Serie Desarrollo productivo. CEPAL. Red Interamericana de Compras Públicas (RICG). RICG. http://ricg.org/com pras-publicas-sostenibles/contenido/447/es/ Rehfeld, D., & Terstriep, J. (2017). A theoretical framework for the economic underpinnings of social innovation (Vol. 1). Simpact Working Paper. RICYT. (2020). The state of science: Principal 2020 Iberoamerican and Interamerican science and technology indicators. Iberoamerican—Interamerican indicators network. RICYT. Rivas, G., Rovira, S., & Scotto, S. (2014). Reformas a La Institucionalidad De Apoyo a La Innovación En América Latina: Antecedentes Y Lecciones De Estudios De Caso. In G. Rivas & S. Rovira (Eds.), Nuevas Instituciones Para La Innovación: Prácticas Y Experiencias En América Latina. CEPAL. Rogers, J. D. (2013). Technology extension services. In The innovation policy platform. Policy brief . World Bank. Sagasti, F. (2011). Ciencia, Tecnología, Innovación: Políticas Para América Latina. Fondo de Cultura Económica. Schot, J., & Steinmueller, E. (2018). Three frames of innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47 , 1554– 1567. SELA. (2015). Las Compras Públicas Como Herramienta De Desarrollo En América Latina Y El Caribe. Sistema económico Latinoamericano y del Caribe-SECOP-UNASUR-REDEPLAN. SENACYT. (2016). Capacidades Científicas. Investigación Orientada Por Misión. SENACYT. Shapira, P., Youtie, J., Cox, D., Uyarra, E., Gok, A., Rogers, J., & Downing, C. (2015). Institutions for technology diffusion. Inter-American Development Bank. Sutz, J. (2010). Ciencia, Tecnología, Innovación E Inclusión Social: Una Agenda Urgente Para Universidades Y Políticas. Psicología, Conocimiento y Sociedad, 1, 3–49. The World Bank Group. (Ed.). (2019). World development indicators database. https://datos.bancomundial.org

4

INNOVATION POLICIES FOR INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE …

79

UNCTAD. (2019). Panama: Science, technology and innovation policy review. UNCTAD. Uyarra, E., Edler, J., Gee, S., Georghiou, L., & Yeow, J. (2014). UK. In V. Lember, R. Kattel, & T. Kalvet (Eds.), Public procurement, innovation and policy. Springer-Verlag.

CHAPTER 5

Towards a Regional Policy: Transformative Innovation in Colombia Nicolás Garzón Rodríguez and Janaina Pamplona da Costa

5.1

Introduction

A new generation of STI policies has emerged in the academic and policy realms, bringing to the fore new emphasis on the contemporary social and environmental challenges (Kuhlmann & Rip, 2018). The TIF is an answer to changes faced by global STI policies in the recent years.

This chapter presents partial results of the main author’s Master’s dissertation. The dissertation is entitled “The transformative innovation policy in Colombia: an analysis based on the regional level”. The Master’s degree in Science and Technology Policy Studies at the State University of Campinas (Unicamp) was funded by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) process 190573/2017-1 and supervised by the co-author of this chapter. N. G. Rodríguez (B) · J. P. da Costa Department of Science and Technology Policy (DPCT), State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Ordónez-Matamoros et al. (eds.), Policy and Governance of Science, Technology, and Innovation, Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80832-7_5

81

82

N. G. RODRÍGUEZ AND J. P.

DA

COSTA

According to Schot and Steinmueller (2018), the TIF aims to contribute to a new perspective in relation to the traditional approaches for innovation policies that, so far, have focused on economic growth created under STI activities: (i) based on the Linear Model of Innovation, and (ii) on economic competitiveness created by a systemic model in which strategic actors interact (the Interactive Innovation Model). The TIF is based on the concept of sociotechnical transition. The transformation of sociotechnical systems is structured by modern patterns and habits to satisfy human needs through the provision of goods and services, fostering technological and social arrangements oriented by sustainability and equality (Kanger & Schot, 2019). The Colombian Administrative Department of Science, Technology and Innovation (Colciencias) implemented the TIF in Colombia during the years 2016–2018. The Department was in charge of the development of the country’s system of innovation; the implementation of this framework resulted from Colciencias participation in the Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium (TIPC). The Consortium is a global initiative involving innovation ministries and funding agencies from different countries, coordinated by the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at Sussex University. Its aim is to foster the adoption of the transformative innovation in the involved countries (TIPC, 2018). The engagement of Colombia in TIPC has triggered attempts to changes in the country’s cognitive frame of STI policy making, as well as an institutional questioning of the aims of these policies by considering national needs. As a result, the National Science and Innovation Policy for Sustainable Development (called the Green Book 2030 in Colombia) was created, bringing new principles and guidelines that considered the experimentation of the transformative frame in Colombia. It took a horizontal institutional perspective to advise Colciencias’ policy instruments and programmes. In that sense, the aim of the Green Book is to broaden the understanding and learning in policy programmes towards inclusion and participation, such as the Programme for Ideas for Change (Ideas para el Cambio) and a Certain Science (A Ciencia Cierta). These had the objective of bringing universities and local communities together to solve problems and foster entrepreneurship based on STI. STI policies in Colombia have been experiencing an institutional shift since 2011, when there was a decentralisation of State level STI resources and competencies towards regional governments (Law 1530/2012). This was enabled by the creation of the Science Technology and Innovation

5

TOWARDS A REGIONAL POLICY …

83

Fund within the General Royalty System (Sistema General de Regalías en CTI), endowed with 10% of the royalties from mining and energy production. The regional governments would have resources to formulate, approve and implement STI projects. In practice, this new structure governing the regional level STI policies, because the Departmental Councils of Science, Technology and Innovation (CODECTI) operated merely as a participatory arena for regional governments. The latter were not able to take part in the allocation of budgetary resources (Moncayo, 2018). Thus, peripheral regions in Colombia engaged in the planning of STI policies, and this involved a process of institutional learning. With the purpose of making TIF more visible at the regional level, Colciencias opened a call to foster the process of appropriation of the Framework’s main elements by universities and regional governments (Colciencias & SPRU, 2018). However, it is not feasible to assess whether such elements were fully understood and assimilated by local actors engaged in public policies as the implementation of the framework is relatively recent. In this context, the objective of this chapter is to investigate the alignment between theory, policy and practice based on recent Colombian experiences with transformative innovation policies (Kuhlmann & Ordóñez-Matamoros, 2017). To do so, we review the main models and frameworks for innovation policy and their relation to the territory taking into consideration the Latin American literature about STI policies in the region. We then analyse the relationship, gaps and mismatches between theory (i.e., the TIF), STI policies implemented at regional level and the practices reported by policy actors in central government, universities and civil society organisations. From the governance perspective, the investigation of such relationships allows the understanding of the possibilities and limitations for the creation of a Transformative Innovation Policy in Colombia at the regional level. The study implemented a qualitative approach based on original data collected through 31 semi-structured interviews with actors involved in Colombian STI. Interviews were implemented in 2019 with representatives from government, universities and civil society. The chapter is structured as follows: the first section discusses innovation policy models and frameworks, and their relation to the territory; outlining the main conceptual elements regarding STI policy at the regional level. The second section presents the Latin American perspective on the Linear and Interactive models of innovation, highlighting the relevance of the territory and the engagement of local actors in regional STI policy. We then discuss the inclusion of the TIF in STI policies in

84

N. G. RODRÍGUEZ AND J. P.

DA

COSTA

Colombia as well as the rationales and the assimilation of this emergent Framework by local actors. Such discussion allows us to examine the governance of transformative innovation policies in Colombian regions, and their possibilities and limitations.

5.2 The Territory and the Policy Innovation Models and Frameworks The Linear Model of Innovation prescribes that basic science underpins economic growth and social progress (Velho, 2011). Governments are responsible for basic research, conducted at universities and public research centres, which is transferred to the private sector. The latter should conduct applied research enabling technological development and innovations to reach the market (Bonvillian, 2014; Mazzucato, 2013). According to this Model, the academic community is self-regulated and funded by the public sector. This is a sine qua non condition to the transformation of scientific knowledge into innovations by the private sector (Schot & Steinmueller, 2018). Basic research was seen as the driver of geopolitical influence, national economic growth and State intervention’s focus (Freeman & Soete, 2008). As other developing countries, Colombia embraced the Model as a policy instrument (Velho, 2011). In the 1960s it inspired the design of local institutions responsible for scientific and technological development (Nupia, 2013). The Linear Model was instrumental in providing the rationale for incipient STI policies in Colombia. However, it presented an interpretative limitation. It considered knowledge as a “public good” readily available to all countries (Schot & Steinmueller, 2018). The territory has multiple scales such as the national, regional and local ones, and it can be a relevant asset in knowledge production and application. At each of these levels there are specificities in terms of integration to the international division of labour resulting in different degrees of technical progress (Prebisch, 1950). Depending on the latter, economic application of knowledge can be facilitated or restrained. In this perspective, the Model overlooked the territory as a factor that influenced policy outcomes. In the 1980s, the Interactive Model of Innovation emerges as a key framework to conceive STI policies, replacing the idea of basic research as the only source for technical progress (Gibbons et al., 1994) (Velho, 2011). Hence, the main argument is that innovations are a by-product of

5

TOWARDS A REGIONAL POLICY …

85

the interaction between the market and the different stages in knowledge production and innovation. Although the model takes the accumulation of scientific knowledge as crucial (Freeman, 1995; Kline & Rosenberg, 1986; Lundvall, 2016); firms are at the centre of the innovation process and are regulated by an institutional context that foster or hinder their actions (Edquist, 1997). In Latin America, the Interactive Model inspired policies to promote local innovation and to strengthen Innovation Systems. However they were limited by the fact there was weak demand of scientific knowledge by local firms (Dagnino & Velho, 1998). In the Interactive Model the multiple scales of the territory, conceived as the historical and institutional contexts that influence the interaction among actors, are considered in STI policy framing. The understanding that a regional system of innovation might offer the infrastructure and skills necessary for economic development (Freeman, 1995) highlights the importance of the territory as an environment that enables the recombination of resources for innovation (Cooke, 2015; García, 2017). The territory may itself be a by-product of innovation developed due to skills specialisation in the production process, embedded in social networks that influence technological development in regions (Saxenian, 2005). The proximity between actors occurs in the territory and enables creating a coordination mechanism in which knowledge sharing is favoured by faceto-face contacts (Storper & Venables, 2004), and fostered by formal and informal rules shared by actors (Boschman et al., 2014). The territory, as a historical construction, relates to the concept of path-dependence (David, 1994), that is, a historical arrangement of accumulated events that support a technology trajectory, a system and the space (Martin & Sunley, 2010). This approach highlights the importance of institutional evolution and its positive and negative externalities in the coordination of actors (Page, 2006). Evolution refers to the mechanisms, such as learning, networks and externalities, in which historical mutations and adaptations are not predetermined (Martin & Sunley, 2010). Pathdependence enables the territory, considered as a group of materialised arrangements in the geographical space, to be relevant for the innovation process. The adoption of STI policy models conceived in developed countries dates back to the 1960s in Colombia, when the National Council of Science and Technology and the Fund “Francisco José de Caldas” were created. They had a consultative role in the formulation of science policy. These administrative bodies gave birth to Colciencias in 1968. It was

86

N. G. RODRÍGUEZ AND J. P.

DA

COSTA

expected that the formulation and funding of science policy would be centralised at the national government level (Ospina, 1998). In the same vein, in the 1970s, the project Science and Technology Policy Instruments (STPI), led by SPRU, structured the epistemic foundations of the scientific programmes and plans during the decade under the rationale, widely accepted then, that science and technology could underpin economic development (Nupia, 2013). From the 1980s onwards, the country embraced the formulation of demand-pull policies, defining thematic priorities through STI National Programmes (Ospina, 1998). In recent decades, Colciencias structured institutional competencies, embracing a systemic and interactive perspective on innovation (Law 1289/2009) (Salazar, 2017). The TIF discusses social and environmental negative externalities, absent in the models discussed above (Schot & Steinmueller, 2018). The Framework focuses on changes in sociotechnical systems to achieve a more sustainable and inclusive production, distribution and consumption (Kanger & Schot, 2019), and sets sustainable challenges as a normative guide for STI policies (Soete, 2019). The model argues that social problems should be considered in STI policies, based on the incapacity of science and technology achievements alone to resolve social needs (Nelson, 1977).1 A sociotechnical system is an interaction between the social and the technological, that is, a group of rationalities, organisations, knowledge and artefacts oriented by a general purpose (Walker et al., 2008), which can be, among other elements, systems related to production and consumption that may satisfy human needs (Schot & Steinmueller, 2018). The changes of these systems towards sustainable and inclusive arrangements are the central aim of the TIF, which is noted at territorial level by the resurgence of local knowledge and embeddedness (Santos, 1999). The sociotechnical transitions approach relates to the TIF, embracing a multilevel perspective. According to Geels (2002), the multilevel approach is structured at three levels of analysis: landscape, sociotechnical

1 In this work, the author refers to the evolution of STI in United States and the

emergence of social demands during the 1970s to the solution of problems that directly affected poor communities, neglected during the prioritisation of investments in scientific and technological knowledge in the context of the Cold War. This implies the conception of an STI oriented by socially established needs, especially in the applied sciences, and a re-assessment of the social sciences.

5

TOWARDS A REGIONAL POLICY …

87

regime and niches. The landscape is a long-term trend that frames the sociotechnical regime, such as, demographic dynamics, ideology, social values and economic patterns (Boni et al., 2018). The sociotechnical regime is composed by rules that regulate interactions among actors, as well as knowledge, technologies and infrastructures (Geels, 2002). The regime can be structured in a specific institutional context, especially in developing countries (Ramos-Mejía et al., 2018). Finally, niches are protected spaces for the incubation and experimentation of technological innovations (Geels, 2002), they are also a network of relations for experimentation and scaling up (Boni et al., 2018). Hence, systems change when the dominant features of the sociotechnical regime are modified (Schot & Steinmueller, 2018). Changes in the sociotechnical systems are created from technological or market niches (Schot & Geels, 2008). However, the TIF claims for broader conceptualisation of such niches. Niches can be spaces for the experimentation of new elements from a more sustainable sociotechnical regime, allowing changes in social values in the long-term (Colciencias, 2018). These spaces may allow the construction of new narratives and service provision, such as health, potable water or education. Niche diversity, as well as the existence of multiple sociotechnical systems, show that there is not a one-fits-all model, and transformative innovation as a process of experimentation and learning, generates niches and solutions that might not be generalised (Schot & Steinmueller, 2018). Experimentation based on the sociotechnical transition approach, focusing on sustainability, has been included in policies scopes of some developing countries, meanly in India, China and South Africa, in the field of energy, agriculture and mobility, creating different spaces for niche configuration (Wieczorek, 2018). The transition of sociotechnical systems demands a deep transition in the elements that are institutional and historically constructed, where niches change the ongoing narratives and allow the creation of new visions for the future that may direct innovation policy action (Kanger & Schot, 2019). Hence, changes at the social and political levels result from niches that structure or incorporate new technologies, knowledge or social processes in favour of more sustainable and inclusive systems (Wieczorek, 2018). Such transformations demand the negotiation of visions and expectations for the articulation of an increasing number of actors, as well as the arrangement of a network of relations that transform ongoing regimes and power through the mediation of social organisations as the

88

N. G. RODRÍGUEZ AND J. P.

DA

COSTA

basis for scaling up the niches. The latter requires creativity and power (Ramos-Mejía et al., 2018). Such process brings the territory into the innovation process. Therefore, the process of combining visions to coordinate actors and resources might create a governance problem to direct STI policies for sustainability (Fagerberg, 2018). Experimentation is possible only when a deliberative and participative approach is taken (Schot & Steinmueller, 2018). The implementation of transformative change is based on creating networks in which the relationship among actors allows the transformation of the sociotechnical regime elements, embedding the participation of users, citizens and social movements. The relationship between innovation and participation has been discussed by other innovation approaches, such as, “open innovation”, “responsible innovation” and “collaborative innovation”, which discuss co-creation among users, customers and firms (Laurent et al., 2018). Other approaches, such as, “social innovation” and “grassroots innovation”, also discuss the engagement of different actors in the configuration of technologies or social process to redesign sociotechnical systems aiming sustainability (UNCTAD, 2019). The transition of sociotechnical systems requires the understanding that changes occur at the regional level. This suggests that changes in the trajectory of regions emerge from local processes or external changes. Thus, in this chapter, we combine studies on evolutionary economic geography and transitions in an analytical framework to examine regional diversification processes in transformative innovation. Our framework attempts to explain how regions rearrange new development paths, and why those are different among regions. It highlights the presence of related economic activities (relatedness), which becomes an “enabling factor” for development (Boschma et al., 2017).2 The framework refers to regional diversification in relation to production and employment and their changes (and align them with earlier innovation models—i.e. Linear and Interactive). The main argument underlying our framework is that local changes of significance happen as a result of a combination of specific territorial characteristics and capacities that hitherto were absent (Boschma, 2017), anticipating that these conditions are conducive to niche configuration and changes in sociotechnical systems.

2 Although unrelated activities can have this role, they rarely are (Boschma et al., 2017).

5

TOWARDS A REGIONAL POLICY …

89

Boschma et al. (2017) argue that there are ways to create new paths: sociotechnical alignment or niches upscaling. Alignment refers to the transformation of production and consumption systems and their coevolution with changes in, among others, institutions, markets, user’s practices and policies. Niches upscaling refers to opportunities for incubating radical novelties that should be protected from institutional restrictions, which are commonly mature to allow changes in the sociotechnical systems. Different actors may experiment and try how innovations can be mixed according to its local context. Diversification mechanisms in regions allow the understanding of how experimental niches were created and how changes in the sociotechnical regime create niches and regional changes. The authors argue that there are diversification mechanisms related to territory whereas others are not. The former refers to the creation of niches or regional changes by the replication of existing innovations in the regime and the production chains established under its frame, and by exaptation, when new innovations are locally created under existing production arrangements. Mechanisms unrelated to the territory, such as the transplantation, resulted from external intervention in the approximation of a niche to dominant sociotechnical regime. Therefore, the territory is an important element that has not always been visible in the different innovation policy models and frameworks and is a relevant analytical category to be investigated.

5.3

The Transformative Innovation Framework at the Regional Level in Latin America

Latin American scholars have argued against the use of industrial and innovation policies imported from developed countries. For instance, the Latin American World Model (known as the Bariloche Model) questioned imported policies and privileged human development over economic growth (Herrera et al., 1994). Imported policies started to be implemented in the 1960s and continued over the following decades. The main argument was that the transfer of resources, technologies and knowledge would lead to economic progress, putting into practice norms and values that could lead to catching up and the convergence of development standards. However, the impact of such policies was limited due to asymmetries between local institutional contexts (incipient in nature) and those from developed countries, which were more mature (Vessuri, 2015). In

90

N. G. RODRÍGUEZ AND J. P.

DA

COSTA

addition, Herrera (1973) argued that the development of scientific infrastructure and capacities in Latin America resulted from the enhancement of citizenship rights by the local middle class rather than from knowledge demands posed by local firms. Hence, economic development in the region was not based on local knowledge and technologies, and science and technology autonomy were hardly part of national policies. According to Velho (2011), during the 1950s and 1960s, STI policies in Latin America followed the Linear Model of Innovation and focused on a supply-side approach, funding public research organisations and universities in order to improve local scientific capacities and training in basic science. These were expected to lead to local technological development. This approach was questioned in the 1970s and 1980s when a new policy related to the Interactive Model of Innovation was put into practice and aimed to foster entrepreneurial activities at universities related to a demand-pull perspective. This policy, called “vinculacionismo” by Latin American scholars, aimed to create a closer relationship between universities and firms, fostering mechanisms to transfer knowledge from the former to the latter (Dagnino & Velho, 1998). Such policy had few practical results because the demand of local firms for scientific knowledge did not increase as expected (compared to the experience of developed countries). In the XXI Century, emerging paradigms have emphasised social welfare and public participation in knowledge production (Velho, 2011). In this context a wider policy rationale has been proposed to direct STI activities towards social problems, which would demand specific local knowledge, enhancing its legitimacy (Arocena & Sutz, 2010). With the new rationale, alternative policy approaches have been proposed with the aim of overcoming the failures of imported STI policy models in addressing local social problems. For instance, the “social technology approach” claims that STI should take part in the solution of social problems that cannot be solved within the scope of the capitalist system. STI should be based on solidarity ties between economic agents instead (Dagnino, 2014). New approaches to innovation policies have been put into practice to include new research problems, new actors and the solution of social needs (Daza-Caicedo & Lozano-Borda, 2013). Different initiatives that bring local problems and actors to the fore have been classified as, among others, “inclusive”, “pro-poor” and “indigenous” innovation approaches. These highlight the need for new perspectives that have been neglected by the traditional models (i.e., Linear and Interactive) (Cozzens & Sutz, 2014).

5

TOWARDS A REGIONAL POLICY …

91

The Latin American approach to STI was marked by a critical perspective on imported policy models. The agendas, methods and practices depended on the experiences of developed countries. The proposition was that the STI policies should come closer to the political process, to achieve a higher degree of social and economic development level (Kreimer & Vessuri, 2018). In the 1970s, Francisco Sagasti argued that an inclusive approach should be considered because social participation was directly related to inclusion and cohesion. He proposed that inclusive STI policies should cut across different sectors such as education, health and the environment (Casas et al., 2014). In Latin America normative guidelines not always coincide with policy design due to the variety of goals and actors (Feld, 2014). Therefore, inclusive policies are heterogeneous across the region. In Colombian STI policies, the inclusive approach meant: “(i) to be open to the demands of local communities, civil society and layman, (ii) to liaise the dialogue between different forms of knowledge, (iii) and to identify social demands and locate immediately those who can resolve them, (iv) assign a high importance to the interdisciplinary solutions” (Salazar et al., 2014, p. 141, translated by the authors). The territory should take a central role in a Latin American approach to STI, allowing new interpretations and appropriations of STI concepts. The territory is considered conducive to social and economic interaction. It is composed of a group of objects (natural ones or artefacts), and flows of population, information, knowledge and financial capital (Santos, 2013). The geographic space is a technoscientific milieu where science and technology are used to arrange and rearrange the territory (Santos, 2013), STI is subordinated to the expansion and reproduction of financial capital, becoming exogenous to local peripheral societies. The technoscientific milieu rearranges the territory under the logic of the capitalist profit maximisation, which results in inadequate use of science and technology and natural and human resources traditionally found in peripheral countries (Santos, 1988). The relationship between the territory and innovation increases in complexity, because the geographical space is subordinated to economic purposes, which in turn deepens the hierarchisation of the territory (Santos, 2013). Therefore, the territory transforms and is transformed by sociotechnical systems. The TIF takes a systemic approach, it seeks to include a wider array of actors who are traditionally excluded from STI policy formulations (which might be considered as a new STI policy paradigm) (Velho, 2011). The concept of a Territorial System of Innovation contributes to the

92

N. G. RODRÍGUEZ AND J. P.

DA

COSTA

arrangement of new policy rationales and emergence of actors that are traditionally disengaged from policy design at the regional level. This System is considered a space of complex relationships among different actors, localised in a particular space, interacting at multiple scales in the production, appropriation and diffusion of innovations; those are embedded in a context of dispute to control the territory aiming at its economic exploitation, when profit and external control play a stronger role than the solution of common problems for local actors (Fernandes, 2016, p. 132). This particular Latin American perspective on innovation and the territory takes into account the engagement of local actors and their trajectories in the arrangement to new paths, which result from democratic collective action and STI activities. Therefore, the creation and use of innovation may be directed to solving local problems, identified and experienced by local actors. The use of innovation for labour productivity, as opposed to the use of innovation for wider social aims, is a by-product of the political dynamic. Local power relations determine the dispute in the STI policy arena, that is, the “territory relational” dimension determined by relations of power, historical inequalities, asymmetry and conflicts in the territory (Fernandes, 2016). Hence, relations of power as the base for constructing the historic legacy of the territory are an important asset to explain the emergence of the TIF. The Territorial System of Innovation approach calls for an understanding of power relations. As discussed above, political issues are crucial to constructing experimental niches that aim changes in the sociotechnical systems. The Territorial System of Innovation articulates objects and actions that create the geographical space (Santos, 2009), it also defines a group of actors whose relations of power in the generation, appropriation and use of STI arranges and is arranged by such objects and action. These are a result of different spatial scales and local dynamics, that is, of interactions of internal and external powers present in the territory. Such components, that is, the actors in the Territorial System of Innovation, and their relations are a product of power dynamics. Hence, experimental niches for sociotechnical systems transition depend on the dynamics of relations of power that arrange the geographic space, its elements, infrastructure, institutions and sociotechnical imaginaries (i.e., visions about the future structured in a political space, which guide the action of the nation-state in the field of STI policies) (Jasanoff & Kim, 2009). Those facilitate or restrict the employment of STI for purposes that are politically

5

TOWARDS A REGIONAL POLICY …

93

selected. In that sense, infrastructures, public policies and institutions can maintain the political order or might question it in the search for new uses of STI (Fernandes, 2016).

5.4 Transformative Innovation as a Possibility for the Regionalisation of STI Policy in Colombia The governance of regional transformative innovation policy in Colombia is complex, considering the institutional context of the country. Colombia is a unitary and decentralised republic (República de Colombia, 1991), that is, the political and administrative powers are centralised in the national government and the regional and local levels are regulated by national laws (Kaufmann et al., 2018). The institutional change based on the 1991 political constitution aimed to arrange a more democratic, participative and inclusive political system (Uprimny & Sánchez, 2012). The administrative and fiscal decentralisation for the provision of social services allowed departmental and city governments a wider autonomy in the formulation of public policies (Falleti, 2010). In 2011, the constitutional reform created the STI Fund as part of the General Royalty System, financed by 10% of royalties provided by the exploitation of mineral-energy non-renewable resources (Law 1530/2012). The Fund attempted to decentralise STI policies to provide regional development (República de Colombia, 2011). In the first stage the departmental governments had considerable autonomy to decide about distributing such resources following the Collegiate Body for Administration and Decision (OCAD). However, the Law 1923/2018 implemented a centralised control by Colciencias with regard to the implementation of public calls, the alignment of projects with the Departmental Strategic Plans and Agreements (PAED) while the accreditation of actors allowed the management of resources. It attempted to guarantee that the investments from royalties generated positive regional impacts. This governance structure differs from policy formulation related to economic productivity at the regional level (National Decree 1500/2012), which emptied the coordination among state agencies in the formulation and implementation of STI policies, programmes and projects (Orozco et al., 2019). The coordination of resources and actors for public policies effectiveness (Bevir, 2009) demands the alignment between theory, policy and practice (Kuhlmann & Ordóñez-Matamoros, 2017). Therefore, the

94

N. G. RODRÍGUEZ AND J. P.

DA

COSTA

capacity of the TIF to achieve the regionalisation of STI policies in Colombia depend on the alignment between these elements, enabling the inclusion of problems and actors that traditionally did not take part in policy formulation. In principle, this would allow the democratisation of STI policies. Since the 1960s, Colombia has implemented international innovation policy models for the formulation of STI policies (Nupia, 2013). Both the Linear and Interactive Models were implemented under a scenario of limited public and private investments in R&D, amounting to around 0.25% of the GDP during the 2010s (Correa-Restrepo et al., 2014). Thus, the alignment between theory, policy and practice was negatively influenced by the existing institutional arrangement. Following the recommendations of the First Mission of Wise Men (Primera Misión de Sabios, 1994) STI policies in Colombia attempted to reduce the gap between science, technology and society (Correa-Restrepo et al., 2014). The Ondas Program implemented by Colciencias in 2001 was the first initiative to take an inclusive approach. It aimed to increase the scientific capacity of school children in the more remote territories in Colombia; these experiences would complement the Social Appropriation of Science, Technology and Innovation (Estrategia Nacional de Apropiación Social de la Ciencia, la Tecnología y la Innovación, 2010) that focused on co-construction of knowledge and not its passive appropriation by society (Daza-Caicedo & Lozano-Borda, 2013). Other programmes, such as, the Ideas for Change (Ideas para el Cambio) and a Certain Science (A Ciencia Cierta), implemented in 2011 and 2012 respectively, aimed to promote STI through social processes developed by communities at the regional level, which were oriented towards local development or access to goods and services. During the 2010s Colombia developed STI policies related to the (dominant) Interactive Innovation Model, but also tried to experiment new policy instruments that would respond to local needs for social inclusion (Salazar et al., 2014). In 2018, Colcienciascreated the Green Book 2030 under the TIPC arrangement. The main aim was to implement the TIF as a mean to articulate policies that were traditionally formulated under separate frameworks, such as: science policy, firm innovation policy and inclusive innovation policy (interview, government representative).3 The Green 3 This section is based on secondary data and interviews with actors involved in the STI regional policies in Colombia, among those, government officers, university faculty members and researchers and civil society.

5

TOWARDS A REGIONAL POLICY …

95

Book proposes the alignment of fragmented STI policies to contribute to the major challenges for sustainability discussed under the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework, it seeks to foster long-term changes in the current sociotechnical systems in Colombia. The Green Book aims at “i) promoting and supporting the adoption of a transformative focus in the SNCTI [National System of Science, Technology and Innovation] and other related systems; ii) guiding national Science and innovation in order to meet the SDGs; and iii) promoting and supporting the deployment of a transformative focus to achieve the SDGs at the territorial level” (Colciencias, 2018, p. 41). Therefore, the TIF became the normative background to the solution of social problems and interregional differences in Colombia through the experimentation and inclusion of actors not traditionally engaged in STI policies (Colciencias & SPRU, 2018). Based on a public consultation, the transformative innovation policy proposed the following action points: the adoption of the TIF by Colciencias and by other relevant actors; the orientation of STI towards SDGs and implementation at the regional level. Hence, action for the diffusion and appropriation of transformative innovation included the creation of networks for research on transformative innovation policy under the TIPC, and the implementation of activities aiming the capacity building in transformative innovation among researchers and policy makers. In terms of policy instruments, a review of the TIF elements was taken to identify their presence or absence in Colombia. The purpose was to implement transformative instruments in places where elements of the model were lacking, to potentialise cases already related to sociotechnical transformation and to strengthen policy instruments that appeared to be relevant to sociotechnical changes. At the same time, it attempted to foster a major transformation both at the institutional level and in the relationships present in the Colombian System of Innovation, promoting capacities in scientific and technological research, as well as innovation at the firm level. These might allow the development of SDGs with emphasis on citizenship and the creation of a portfolio of instruments to support the configuration of networks and transformative initiatives (Colciencias, 2018). In the process of socialisation and appropriation of the TIF by regional actors, that is, the alignment between policy and practice, a narrative for transformative innovation policy was based on previous experiences of inclusive innovation. The idea of a STI policy-oriented to social needs

96

N. G. RODRÍGUEZ AND J. P.

DA

COSTA

was not new for regional governments, “this was not seen as an alien: we already do it” (interview, university representative). Many regional plans “had the principles of the transformative innovation present, but they were not called that” (interview, university representative); in addition, at universities interviewees stated that “[they] were working under the transformative innovation, but they did not understand [it] as a model” (interview, university representative). Regional actors also stated that the Colombian institutional arrangement already promoted sustainability and inclusion, “STI policy should guarantee the environmental protection as a constitutional mandate, but also the social rule of law, which is the wellbeing of citizens” (interview, government representative). Therefore, the TIF was appropriate as a reference in the democratisation strategy for STI rather than as a model that would allow the overcoming of traditional policy arrangements. Nonetheless, TIF created opportunities for more inclusive STI policies at the regional level taking into account the paths of each territory. At the level of the cities, TIF was understood as an innovation that “produces results, that transforms reality” (interview, government representative), although the “transformative framework calls for the participation of society in the resolution of major challenges (…) society will claim its more immediate needs, people in general think in the shortterm” (interview, university representative). In that sense, the Framework would be ideal to “solve the social problems that are more oppressive to communities directly affected by armed conflict violence, and some research groups can co-construct solutions with them, based in STI” (interview, government representative), especially in peripheral regions where needs are not commonly satisfied. As described by Santos (1988), the hierarchisation of the territory, increasing the inequality between the urban and the rural, preceded the process of hierarchisation present in the TIF. Hence, innovation in peripheral territories would be supported by social processes developed by local communities. However, they were limited by the lack of STI infrastructure and capacities and by institutional rigidity. In rural areas the “transformative policy is on its own and had never been seen. People get organised from their own bases, and they are more knowledgeable about the territories than the scientists” (interview, university representative). This interviewee emphasised that innovations similar to those suggest by the TIF were already in place in rural areas, but had not been recognised as such by local actors. Transformative innovation would be possible only in rural contexts, but would

5

TOWARDS A REGIONAL POLICY …

97

not create major transformations because of urban–rural fragmentation process. These results suggest that sociotechnical imaginaries (Jasanoff & Kim, 2009) might be different between rural and urban areas. The territory, society and STI policies are fragmented by hierarchisation, hindering major transformations in sociotechnical systems. Thus, the TIF, when understood as inclusive innovation by actors, would be useful to solve conflicts for inclusion at the local level, but not for the development of the regional economy based on innovation. For cities that concentrate economic activities, population and STI capacities, the transformative framework would be irrelevant because the catching-up challenge is still a priority for academics and public policy makers. In that sense, the integration between rural and urban areas in the innovation process discussed by Fernandes (2016) is a necessary asset for developing inclusive development processes. Such integration between the rural and the urban should be incorporated at the theoretical level by the TIF, when territorial hierarchisation might be superseded. However, large inequalities between regions and the complexity of the territorial paths in Colombia lead to different types of appropriation of the transformative innovation by policy actors (Colciencias and SPRU, 2018). Regions respond to specific local needs, which limit the changes leading to major transformation in the sociotechnical system; this is because they do not integrate the urban and the rural spaces. The inclusion of actors who rarely engage in public policy is one the most important principles of the TIF, however, institutional limitations in the Colombian System of Innovation have created barriers for this engagement, especially because the system is rigid due to administrative bias (Salazar, 2017). At the theory level, it is necessary to tackle the problem related to power relations in the configuration and upscaling of niches and to enable major transformations at the regional level. An urban–regional approach for transformative innovation could be relevant to address such limitation. The democratisation process in public policies in Colombia based on the Political Constitution of 1991 attempted to increase the autonomy of the territories and their participation in society. Innovation policies were limited by the implementation of traditional models of innovation (Linear and Interactive) and space was created to experiment with new innovation models and frameworks. The Green Book is the most important initiative by Colciencias to the process of policy democratisation due to its decentralised STI policies. However, policy actors argue that the TIF must be

98

N. G. RODRÍGUEZ AND J. P.

DA

COSTA

implemented taking into consideration the capacities of each territory, and these mirror the hierarchisation that brings inequality between the urban and the rural. In that sense, the TIF would be insufficient to supersede national and regional problems because the practices are understood as social innovations, and not as a new theoretical framework developed by Colciencias that would allow overcoming the failures of traditional innovation policy models. Enlarging societal and regional participations in the national context is a problem beyond STI policies and demand political change in the long-term.

5.5

Conclusions

The aim of this chapter was to analyse the alignment between theory, STI policies formulated under the TIF and practices implemented by the actors involved in the case of Colombia. In order to achieve this aim, we discussed how the three innovation policy models and frameworks—Linear, Interactive and Transformative—relate to the territory. The purpose was to link policy to regional issues and discuss how and whether territorial characteristics are relevant in the process of putting policy into practice. This aspect relates to the location of learning capacities and the emergence of local actors able to include their problems in the STI policy agenda. The TIF is a complementary alternative to the two previous STI policy models (Linear and Interactive) as it seeks to direct these policies to the SDGs and, hence, a more inclusive development. However, the TIF, similarly to the two previous ones, has been transferred from developed to developing countries and this cannot be ignored. At the empirical level, we found that the TIF is partially disconnected from the reality of peripheral regions. For instance, in Colombia we find low investment in STI (compared to developed countries), lack of demand for scientific knowledge by the local economy, and a system of innovation with a strong bias in bureaucratic administration and centralisation. In our perspective, the main issue in considering the territory in Latin America is its urban– rural hierarchisation, which partially results from the international division of labour. Such hierarchisation influences and maintains the historical centre-periphery relationship (Prebisch, 1950), deepening the inequalities between the urban and the rural, and it must be considered in regional transformative innovation policies.

5

TOWARDS A REGIONAL POLICY …

99

The actors involved in STI policy in Colombia have incorporated the TIF as an inclusive innovation framework, taking the institutional learning in this context. The Framework would allow the solution of specific needs in local communities, mainly in rural environments; but it would not be sufficient to solve gaps between regions because STI capacities in peripheral territories are not fully addressed. In addition, considering these structural elements in Colombia, the Framework would not be sufficient to resolve the national weaknesses in STI. However, the Framework strengthens the democratisation of STI policies by decentralising regional policies and providing a new possibility for the inclusion of actors and local demands through social actors’ engagement. This chapter does not address the success or failure of the transformative innovation policy in Colombia. Instead, we analysed the alignment between the theory, policy and practices embracing TIF in this country by the examination of its governance. We draw some implications in each of these three components to foster the democratisation of policies at the regional level. At the theoretical level, it is necessary to further investigate how the integration between the urban and rural territories may reduce regional inequalities. Policy, in addition to proposing normative principles, might consider the institutional lock-ins in STI, such as the restrictions imposed by a rigid bureaucratic administration system, the low investment in STI and low demand for scientific knowledge that has questioned its legitimacy; it should also consider the different sociotechnical imaginaries in urban and rural areas. Policy practices should include transformative policy as a concept underpinning major regional changes enabled by innovation. Acknowledgements The authors are thankful to Dr. André Sica de Campos (FCA, Unicamp, Brazil) for his comments and suggestions on early drafts. We are also thankful to the interviewees for taking part in this study.

References Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2010). Weak knowledge demand in the South: Learning divides and innovation policies. Science and Public Policy, 37 (8), 571–582. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234210X12767691861137 Bevir, M. (2009). Key Concepts in Governance. SAGE.

100

N. G. RODRÍGUEZ AND J. P.

DA

COSTA

Boni, A., Belda-Miquel, S., & Pellicer-Sifres, V. (2018). Innovación transformadora. Propuestas desde la innovación social colectiva para el desarrollo humano. Recerca: revista de pensament i anàlisi, 0(23), 67–94. Bonvillian, W. B. (2014). The new model innovation agencies: An overview. Science and Public Policy, 41(4), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/ sct059 Boschma, R. (2017). Relatedness as driver of regional diversification: A research agenda. Regional Studies, 51(3), 351–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/003 43404.2016.1254767 Boschma, R., Coenen, L., Frenken, K., & Truffer, B. (2017). Towards a theory of regional diversification: Combining insights from evolutionary economic geography and transition studies. Regional Studies, 51(1), 31–45. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1258460 Boschman, R., Ballad, P., & Vann, M. (2014). The formation of economic networks: A proximity approach. In A. Torre & F. Wallet (Eds.), Regional development and proximity relation (pp. 243–266). Edward Elgar. Casas, R., Corona, J., & Rivera, R. (2014). Políticas de ciencia, tecnología e innovación en América Latina: Entre la competitividad y la inclusión social. In H. Vessuri, P. Kreimer, L. Velho, & A. Arellano (Eds.), Perspectivas latinoamericanas en el estudio social de la ciencia, la tecnología y el conocimiento (pp. 352–364). Editorial Siglo Veintiuno. Colciencias. (2018). Green Book 2030: National science and innovation policy for sustainable development. Colciencias. Colciencias, & SPRU. (2018). Orientaciones para la Formulación de Políticas Regionales de Innovación Transformativa en Colombia. Colciencias & University of Sussex. Cooke, P. (2015). Regional innovation systems in centralised states: Challenges, chances, and crossovers. In L. Carmo, J. Ferreira, H. Smith, & S. BagshiSen (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Global Competitive Advantage through Innovation and Entrepreneurship (pp. 71–90). IGI-Global. Correa-Restrepo, J. S., Tejada-Gómez, M. A., Cayón-Fallon, E., & OrdoñezMatamoros, H. G. (2014). Science and technology policy in Colombia: A comparative review. European Journal of Scientific Research, 121(3), 19. Cozzens, S., & Sutz, J. (2014). Innovation in informal settings: Reflections and proposals for a research agenda. Innovation and Development, 4(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2013.876803 Dagnino, R. (2014). Tecnologia Social. Contribuições conceituais e metodológicas. Editora Insular. Dagnino, R., & Velho, L. (1998). University-industry-government relations on the periphery: The University of Campinas, Brazil. Minerva, 36(3), 229–251. JSTOR.

5

TOWARDS A REGIONAL POLICY …

101

David, P. (1994). Why are institutions the ‘carriers of history’?: Path dependence and the evolution of conventions, organizations and institutions. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 5(2), 205–220. Daza-Caicedo, S., & Lozano-Borda, M. (2013). Actividades hacia “otros públicos” Entre la difusión, la apropiación y la gobernanza de la ciencia y la tecnología. In M. Salazar (Ed.), Colciencias cuarenta años: Entre la legitimidad, la normatividad y la práctica (pp. 281–353). Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of innovation. Routledge. Fagerberg, J. (2018). Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment on transformative innovation policy. Research Policy, 47 (9), 1568– 1576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.012 Falleti, T. (2010). Decentralization and subnational politics in Latin America. Cambridge University Press. Feld, A. (2014). Paradigmas internacionales y políticas científico-tecnológicas en Argentina: 1958–1983. In H. Vessuri, P. Kreimer, L. Velho, & A. Arellano (Eds.), Perspectivas latinoamericanas en el estudio social de la ciencia, la tecnología y el conocimiento (pp. 337–351). Editorial Siglo Veintiuno. Fernandes, A. (2016). Sistema territorial de inovação ou uma dimensão de análise na geografia contemporânea. In E. Sposito (Ed.), A diversidade da geografia brasileira: Escalas e dimensões da análise e da ação (pp. 113–142). Consequência. Freeman, C. (1995). The ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10. 1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035309 Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (2008). A economia da inovação industrial. Editora da Unicamp. García, R. (2017). Geografia da inovação. In M. Rapini, L. Silva, & E. Albuquerque (Eds.), Economia da ciência, tecnologia e inovação: Fundamentos teóricos e a economia global (pp. 241–286). Editora Prisma. Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1257–1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8 Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. SAGE Publications. Herrera, A. (1973). Los determinantes sociales de la política científica en América Latina. Política científica explicita y política científica implícita. Desarrollo Económico, 13(49), 1–24. Herrera, A., Corona, L., Dagnino, R., Furtado, A., Gallopín, G., Gutman, P., & Vessuri, H. (1994). Las nuevas tecnologías y el futuro de América Latina: Riesgo y oportunidad. Siglo Veintiuno Editores.

102

N. G. RODRÍGUEZ AND J. P.

DA

COSTA

Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47 (2), 119–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4 Kanger, L., & Schot, J. (2019). Deep transitions: Theorizing the long-term patterns of socio-technical change. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 32, 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.07.006 Kaufmann, W., Hooghiemstra, R., & Feeney, M. K. (2018). Formal institutions, informal institutions, and red tape: A comparative study. Public Administration, 96(2), 386–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12397 Kline, S., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In N. Rosenberg & R. Laund (Eds.), The positive sum strategy. National Academy of Press. Kreimer, P., & Vessuri, H. (2018). Latin American science, technology, and society: A historical and reflexive approach. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 1(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861. 2017.1368622 Kuhlmann, S., & Ordóñez-Matamoros, G. (2017). Research Handbook on Innovation Governance for Emerging Economies: Towards Better Models. Edward Elgar Publishing. Kuhlmann, S., & Rip, A. (2018). Next-generation innovation policy and grand challenges. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 448–454. https://doi.org/10. 1093/scipol/scy011 Laurent, B., Baker, M., Beaudouin, V., & Raulet, N. (2018). Innovation et participation. Presses des Mines, Paris Tech. Lundvall, B.-Å. (2016). The learning economy and the economics of hope. Anthem Press. https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_626406 Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2010). The place of path dependence in an evolutionary perspective on the economic landscape. In R. Boschman & R. Martin (Eds.), The handbook of evolutionary economic geography (pp. 62–92). Edward Elgar. Mazzucato, M. (2013). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. Anthem Press. Moncayo, E. (2018). Las políticas regionales de ciencia, tecnología e innovación en Colombia: Surgimiento, evolución y balance de la situación actual. OPERA, 23, 185–208. https://doi.org/10.18601/16578651.n23.11 Nelson, R. R. (1977). The moon and the Ghetto. An Essay on Public Policy Analysis. Nupia, C. (2013). Origen de la política científica y tecnológica en Colombia: Colciencias y su papel en la transferencia del modelo internacional de política científica. In M. Salazar (Ed.), Colciencias cuarenta años: Entre la legitimidad, la normatividad y la práctica (pp. 121–177). Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.

5

TOWARDS A REGIONAL POLICY …

103

Orozco, L. A., Villaveces, J. L., Ordoñez-Matamoros, G., & Moreno, G. (2019). Innovation policy and governance networks on national innovation systems. In G. Catalano, C. Daraio, M. Gregory, H. Moed & G. Ruocco (Eds.), 17th International Conference on Scientometrics & Informetrics, ISSI 2019—Proceedings (Vol 1, pp. 541–553). Sapienza University. Available at http://www.issi-society.org/publications/issi-conference-procee dings/proceedings-of-issi-2019/. Ospina, M. (1998). Colciencias 30 años: Memorias de un compromiso. Colciencias. Page, S. E. (2006). Path dependence. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1(1), 87–115. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00000006 Prebisch, R. (1950). The economic development of Latin America and this principal problems. United Nations Department of Economic Affairs. Ramos-Mejía, M., Franco-Garcia, M.-L., & Jauregui-Becker, J. M. (2018). Sustainability transitions in the developing world: Challenges of sociotechnical transformations unfolding in contexts of poverty. Environmental Science & Policy, 84, 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017. 03.010 República de Colombia. (1991). Constitución Política de Colombia. http://www. secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/constitucion_politica_1991.html República de Colombia. (2011). Acto Legislativo 05 de 2011. http://www.secret ariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/acto_legislativo_05_2011.html Salazar, M. (2017). The Colombian system of science, technology and innovation in transition: How governance is being affected. In Research Handbook on Innovation Governance for Emerging Economies: Towards Better Models (pp. 232–264). Edward Elgar Publishing. Salazar, M., Lozano-Borda, M., & Lucio-Arias, D. (2014). Ciencia, tecnología e innovación para un desarrollo inclusivo en Colombia: Programas piloto desarrollados por Colciencias. In G. Dutrénit & J. Sutz (Eds.), Sistemas de innovación para un desarrollo inclusivo (pp. 125–154). Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico. Santos, M. (1988). Metamorfoses do espaço habitado: Fundamentos teóricos e metodológicos da geografia. Editora Aucitec. Santos, M. (1999). O território e o saber local: Algumas categorias de análise. Cadernos IPPUR, 13(2), 15–26. Santos, M. (2009). A natureza do espaço: Técnica e tempo, razão e emoção (4. ed., 5. reimpr). Edusp, Ed. da Universidad de São Paulo. Santos, M. (2013). Tecnica, espaço e tempo: Globalização e meio técnico-científicoinformacional. Edusp, Ed. da Universidad de São Paulo. Saxenian, A. (2005). From brain drain to brain circulation: Transnational communities and regional upgrading in India and China. Studies in Comparative International Development, 40(2), 35–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF02686293

104

N. G. RODRÍGUEZ AND J. P.

DA

COSTA

Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 537–554. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09537320802292651 Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47 (9), 1554–1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011 Soete, L. (2019). Science, technology and innovation studies at a crossroad: SPRU as case study. Research Policy, 48(4), 849–857. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.respol.2018.10.029 Storper, M., & Venables, A. J. (2004). Buzz: Face-to-face contact and the urban economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 4(4), 351–370. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/jnlecg/lbh027 TIPC. (2018). Transformative Innovarion Policy Consortium. Innovation for Transformation. http://www.tipconsortium.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/ 04/TIPC-brochure.pdf UNCTAD. (2019). A framework for science, technology and innovation policy reviews: Harnessing innovation for sustainable development. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Uprimny, R., & Sánchez, L. M. (2012). La constitution de 1991, justice constitutionnelle et changement démocratique. Quel bilan deux décennies plus tard ? Cahiers Des Amériques Latines, 71, 33–53. https://doi.org/10.4000/cal. 2663 Velho, L. (2011). Conceitos de Ciência e a Política Científica. Tecnológica e De Inovação. Sociologias, 13(26), 128–153. https://doi.org/10.1590/S151745222011000100006 Vessuri, H. (2015). Global social science discourse: A Southern perspective on the world. Current Sociology, 63(2), 297–313. Walker, G. H., Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., & Jenkins, D. P. (2008). A review of sociotechnical systems theory: A classic concept for new command and control paradigms. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 9(6), 479–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220701635470 Wieczorek, A. J. (2018). Sustainability transitions in developing countries: Major insights and their implications for research and policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 84, 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.008

CHAPTER 6

Transformative Innovation Policy in Emerging Economies: What Does It Entail? Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros, Juan Pablo Centeno, Ernesto Andrade-Sastoque, and Mario A. Pinzón-Camargo

6.1

Introduction

Making sense of ‘innovation’ as a noun is a continuous and everlasting challenge for scholars. The evolution of the concept has been marked by contestation and appropriation dynamics that derive in the emergence of adjectives and surnames for the term (see Godin, 2015; Godin& Vinck, 2017; Gaglio, Godin & Pfotenhauer, 2019). One of such new types (surnames) of innovations is transformative innovation, which is commonly associated with either sustainability transitions and/or

G. Ordóñez-Matamoros Department of Science, Technology, and Policy Studies—STePS, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] G. Ordóñez-Matamoros · J. P. Centeno Centro de Investigaciones y Proyectos Especiales—CIPE, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Ordónez-Matamoros et al. (eds.), Policy and Governance of Science, Technology, and Innovation, Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80832-7_6

105

106

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

sociotechnical change (Geels, 2005; Steward, 2008; 2012; Grin et al., 2010; Weber & Rohracher, 2012; Schot & Steinmueller, 2018). This notion has recently pervaded scholarly discussions on innovation policy as well, raising new debates and highlighting rationales and advocating for institutional demarcations for government intervention under what is called transformative innovation policy (TIP) (Weber & Rohracher, 2012; Schot & Steinmueller, 2018; Janssen, 2019; Kern et al., 2019). These types of approaches have become popular lately, in the light of recent debates around environmental and societal challenges (‘Grand Challenges’, Sustainable Development Goals, responsible research and innovation, etc.) and more recently in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. The common denominator is that the notion, however is used, urges for action to be taken in a more decisive, prescriptive and direct way all around the globe (Smith et al., 2010; Schot & Steinmueller, 2018; Kuhlmann & Rip, 2018), including emerging economies, where this trend of assessing the relevance of local innovation policies is arguably taking place in a particularly fast way (Kuhlmann & Ordonez-Matamoros, 2017). The aim of this reflection chapter is to discuss the main features and logics underlying TIP implementation in emerging economies1 , taking Colombia as an illustrative case when it comes to its conceptualization and the challenges associated with its operationalization. The main contribution of the chapter is threefold: first, we track the breeding ground of the TIP approach on the evolution of global development and agendas; second, we review the state of the art of the TIP concept according to the

E. Andrade-Sastoque Departamento de Derecho Económico, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia e-mail: [email protected] M. A. Pinzón-Camargo (B) Bogotá, Colombia e-mail: [email protected] 1 We are aware of the controversies behind this kind of notions. Nevertheless we have chosen to use the term ‘emerging economies’ interchangeably with the notion of ‘developing countries’, and ‘global south’, and instead of using notions such as ‘postcolonial territories’ for making our reflection accessible for readers who are not familiar

6

TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY …

107

most influential literature on the topic so far; and third, we depict how the implementation of TIP and its related instruments looks like in the case of two ongoing public programs in Colombia. With that in mind, we discuss the challenges and limitations of operationalizing the TIP concept as portrayed by literature so far from the point of view of an emerging economy contexts, such as the one found in Colombia. We argue that although the notion of TIP suggests a bottomup perspective, and that transformative experiences and practices have been taking place in emerging economies for a while, it is presented in the scholarly and policy debates as both a rather top-down notion in epistemological terms, and as a naïf notion in political terms, mainly rooted in development discourses built by scholars and policy-makers from the global north, who have ignored and simplified policy and political realities proper to emerging economies. Colombia is an interesting case for exploring the plausibility and rationales of TIP as understood in the global north for at least four main reasons: (a) it emphatically faces many of the challenges that inspire the global development agendas, where some economic and technological advances are taking place, while structural poverty and inequality problems remain, (b) the country is highly dependent on extractive and other non-sustainable industries that have caused environmental damage, requiring TIPs that addresses such challenges (c) Colombia is trying to cope with a long tradition of violence, social exclusion and environmental degradation caused by armed conflict, which is another grand challenge to be addressed worldwide, and (d) faces weak democratic institutions, high levels of corruption and incipient sense of public good, which characterizes many emerging economies. This context makes therefore Colombia a good candidate for discussing the operationality of TIP discourse as portrayed by dominant literature on the matter, where some self-reflection and action has already begun in a systematic way at both the academic (Ordóñez-Matamoros, 2018; Montero et al., 2018; Villa et al., 2020) and the policy spheres (c.f. ‘Libro Verde 2030’ (University of Sussex & COLCIENCIAS, 2018)). An underlying assumption in this chapter is that the differences between TIP aiming at economic productivity, competitiveness, growth with decolonial approaches, post-developmentalism perspectives and other radical criticism against academic discourses that reinforce and overshadow uneven power patterns in geographical, social and epistemological territories.

108

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

and ‘well-being’ versus TIP aiming social inclusion, peace, human development or sustainability, do matter when looking at its applicability, where the role of politics tend to outweigh other rationales. We in addition assume that this scenario is even proper to the case of emerging economies contexts (Cozzens et al., 2008; Bortagaray & OrdóñezMatamoros, 2012; Dutrénit & Sutz, 2014) than in developed countries. In this regard, we claim that transformative innovation policy studies need to take into account not only policy issues but also political issues when addressing socio-technical transitions (Smith et al., 2010, p. 446) in emerging economies. This piece therefore aims at offering debates aiming at ‘opening the black-box’ of policy as affected by politics, where relevant discussions are offered for better understanding the ‘global governance’ context of a growing worldwide debate about the role of science, technology and innovation (STI) to be more responsive (and responsible) to social needs. We thus highlight issues associated with politics, legitimacy and governance arrangements, as they are seen not only absent in mainstream research despite its central role in emerging economies, but also because this discussion may be of increasing relevance in the ‘western world’ where, as we are witnessing in the current pandemic crisis, these countries are indeed not ‘shielded’ from trends towards radical change. The reminder of the chapter is structured as follows: the next section explores the antecedents, motivations and evolution of what today is called TIP which, as will be shown, results from a narrative closely related from the beginning to debates on development. Section three examines how mainstream academic literature has conceptualized TIP in a more operational way so far. Section four presents the main features of TIP operationalization regarding the policy instruments needed to that end, and discusses how these instruments have tried to be implemented in the case of Colombia. Section five discusses some of the epistemological, conceptual, political and practical challenges and limitations for the implementation of TIP in the case of emerging economies as conclusion to the analysis of the Colombian case, and finally, section six, presents some final thoughts with implications and ideas for further research on the matter.

6

6.2

TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY …

109

Origins of the Transformative Innovation Policy Discourse

Since the early twentieth century the notion of innovation acquired “a positive connotation because of its instrumental function to political, social and material progress of societies” (Godin, 2015, p. 220). As such, the intrinsic motivations and features of a so-called ‘transformative innovation’ can therefore be found in the evolution of critical discussions around the concept of ‘development’. In this section, we review this evolution from the global perspective on (sustainable) development discussions highlighting how it fuelled the emergence of the transformative innovation rationale the way it is used today. Four phases characterizes this process. These are somewhat overlapping with the three innovation policy frames proposed by Schot & Steinmueller (2018), but here the four phases refer to the study and understanding of development (its features and processes), rather than referring to just innovation policy approaches. The first phase relates to the mission-oriented nature assigned to science, technology and innovation activities, where between the early 1940’s with the beginning of the Manhattan Project and 1972 with the development of the Apollo Program, the main goal of innovation policies was to gain market supremacy. The central role of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as well as the European Space Agency (ESA) in the space sector represents the main example at the time. In this context, a crucial element for the future of TIP was the discussion on how to translate broad (grand) challenges and political directionalities into ‘doable’ goals to be achieved (Fujimura, 1987; Barré et al., 2013; Robinson & Mazzucato, 2019). In the so-called ‘peripheral’ countries, Truman’s exhortation (1949) about helping ‘backwarded societies’ set the tone of the post-war discourse that dominated during the 1950s, where technological change was portrayed as a necessary condition for economic growth and, indirectly, development. Since then, the linear model of innovation is seen as the main heuristic for thinking about technological advancement and market expansion. The model was institutionally fuelled by UNESCO in Latin America, where it was adopted in the economic theory idea of step-by-step development (Rostow, 1959). In the following years OECD played a key role in the evolution of the discourse around the role of

110

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

science, technology and innovation policy in society. In 1963, the organization released a report—prepared by Christopher Freeman, Raymond Poignant and Ingvar Svennilsson—claiming to rationalize science policy and link it to economic growth, i.e. giving science policy legitimacy outside the narrow circles of education and research agencies. It came at the same time with the Frascati manual for gathering R&D statistics and supporting more systematic policy-making on the subject. The second phase can be placed from the 1970s to the 1990s. In this period, innovation was seen as a key determinant to growth, and growth was in turn understood as a key determinant to development. The IMF and World Bank programmes were to play the guiding role in such a perspective. Innovation policy in this context was mostly focused on providing the necessary systemic conditions for increasing productivity and competitive advantage, where even labour markets were to be adapted to facilitate growth as the main goal. In the ‘periphery’, the notion of development itself started to be highly contested in the 1970s by authors from the global south (Santos, 2009), with growing criticism on how it represented a form of cultural, social, economic and political hegemony over countries that in those years were called ‘peripheries’ (Andrade-Sastoque & Jiménez, 2016). The third phase emerged at the beginning of 2000s, from a reconceptualization of development as freedom to choose (Sen, 2009, 2014), where primary endowments (Rawls, 2012) or resources (Dworkin, 2017) were deemphasized. The idea of development went therefore beyond economic growth, and focusing on capabilities, giving rise to a new understanding of the relationship between development and innovation (Cozzens et al., 2008). Under this perspective, a development-driven fairer world is not about a better redistribution of revenues or equal resources (Sen, 2009). It is rather about the capacity of each subject to transform resources into opportunities and into freedom, whereby identical goods or resources could represent different things for different people around the world. It is more a matter of basic capabilities for developing different skills, to be able to reach certain performances in different levels of development according to the differences of each society. For example, in a quite ‘poor society’, equality could be based on the idea to improve very basic needs. This frames differently then, innovation thinking. As put by Sen, it is a matter of specific goals for specific functionings in specific societies (Sen, 2009), where it is not a matter of innovating for growing without determinations while social policy redistributes ‘the

6

TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY …

111

grown cake’. On the contrary. The idea of redistributive justice started to appear more explicitly in innovation policy literature, drawing the attention to communitarian issues (Cozzens, 2007). Innovation policy debates started to move towards finding the appropriate innovation required, and on the unintended consequences of innovation on inequality and on the environment. The fourth phase begins in the 2010’s, when the Techno-Economic Paradigm (Pérez, 2010) and Multi-level Perspective (Kemp & Rip, 1997; Kemp et al., 1998; Rip, 2000; Geels, 2002) concepts gained predominance in evolutionary economics of innovation and in Science and Technology Studies (STS), respectively. Since then, these concepts started to be taken into account in heuristics for innovation policy, mainly because of the demands for expanding the frontier of knowledge in the innovation policy field, among other reasons. In 2014 the International Panel for Social Progress, whose Honorary Advisory Committee was led by Professor Amartya Sen, had its first meeting and Professor Johan Schot was invited to participate in the construction of the Social Progress report. He, simultaneously assumed by the suggestion of Carlota Perez, the direction of the Science Policy Research unit (SPRU), which facilitated that his work and colleagues inside the field of transition studies became the pillar of the new Transformative Innovation Policy (TIP) framework by launching the TIP Consortium using as a platform the 50 anniversary of SPRU in 2016 (Daniels et al., 2020). The renewed version of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (also 2030 Agenda) (2016), impulsed originally by a former Colombian diplomat, Paula Caballero, was the perfect breeding ground for making fit the puzzle: the STS multi-level perspective as an underlying theoretical support for TIP, the demanding research changing agenda of innovation policy studies, and the long history of activism in academia of SPRU and of other european university research centres. The SDGs as a massive global political discourse represented a window of opportunity for the enrollment of several national Science Foundations and Science Ministries worldwide in the emerging innovation policy framework. Since then, a few southern countries have been involved in the consortium, among them some Latin American governments, universities and academic networks in Colombia, Mexico and Brazil. Today this is expressed in what is called the TIP Latin American HUB.

112

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

Here we told a superficial story about the configuration of the TIP rationale as a new framework for thinking innovation policy nowadays, nevertheless, we suggest to explore more in-depth current and old southern STS thinking in order to enrich the reflexive spectrum around the TIP overarching rationale. In what follows, we delve into a further exploration of the main tenets of the current use of the notion of TIP as it’s understood today. As will be shown, the TIP approach builds from different bricks cemented in one way or another during the four phases described.

6.3

Main Tenets of Transformative Innovation Policy

In this section we review the main tenets of TIP discourse as it is currently portrayed by its proponents. In so-doing, we first go over the defining features of transformative innovation, then discuss the role of the State and of the related policies characterizing this approach, and end by examining the guiding principles of TIP as we understand it today. 6.3.1

Defining Features

According to literature, TIP has a narrow and a broad interpretation regarding the innovation process (Steward, 2008; 2012; Diercks, 2019). The first conceives innovation as a linear process resulting from technoscientific and techno-economic revolutions, in which societal challenges are “new priorities for R&D through dedicated mission-oriented public funding” (Diercks et al., 2019, p. 885). Here, notions such as ‘missionoriented’ innovation policies and the ‘entrepreneurial state’ are regarded as central for a policy approach seeking to create and shape market transformations (Mazzucato & Semieniuk, 2017, p. 32). Under the second broader interpretation, which we focus on, transformative innovations are major long-term changes in sociotechnical systems2 , including both production and consumption structures, in order to prevent threats to society (Weber & Rohracher, 2012). This 2 Sociotechnical systems are defined as “a cluster of elements, including technology, regulations, user practices and markets, cultural meanings, infrastructure, maintenance networks and supply networks” where the technological and social realms are closely interrelated (Geels et al., 2004, p. 3).

6

TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY …

113

notion moves beyond economics and traditional innovation studies, and builds on the need for an interdisciplinary knowledge base for addressing innovation. It is mainly based on the innovation systems approach and the multi-level perspective (MLP) of technological transitions, and grabs conceptual inputs from transitions management, strategic niche management, sustainability transitions and technological innovation systems literature (Markard et al., 2012; Weber & Rohracher, 2012; Grin et al., 2010; Schot & Steinmueller, 2018; Khöler et al., 2019). Transformative innovations are “full system redesign and culture change in the way people think about products and services” (DEFRA, 2010, p. 5). According to Weber & Rohracher, (2012) and Schot & Steinmueller (2018), these changes are regarded from the point of view of sustainability transitions literature as broad-scope radical paradigm/systemic changes in societal functions such as transportation, sanitation, energy supply, etc., embedded in sociotechnical systems (Geels, 2004; Steward, 2008, p. 15), which over the years have hosted certain (dis)continuities leading to unsustainable industrial structures (Kanger & Schot, 2019). As changes at the sociotechnical system level, transformative innovations are associated with system innovations (OECD, 2015): this is, “an interconnected set of innovations, where each influences the other, with innovation both in the parts of the system and in the ways in which they interconnect” (Mulgan & Leadbeater, 2013, p. 7). System innovations for sustainability transitions reconfigure the structure and boundaries of sociotechnical systems, and involve “fundamental changes in consumer practices and markets” (OECD, 2015, p. 6), i.e. they imply innovation both in technologies and people’s behaviour (Steward, 2008) and are characterized by their long-term, multi-actor and ‘coevolutionary’ character, involving both the demand and supply sides (Geels et al., 2004; Geels, 2005). According to the MLP heuristic, system innovations arise in niches3 and gradually scale up to the sociotechnical regime level, which is embedded in a particular developmental landscape (Geels, 2005). In this process, system innovations involve “disrupting or complementary types of knowledge and technical capabilities” (OECD, 2015, p. 6). 3 According to the multi-level perspective, niches are “protected spaces that allow nurturing and experimentation with the co-evolution of technology, user practices and regulatory structures” (Schot & Geels, 2008, p. 538).

114

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

The type of knowledge needed for system innovations includes integrated, practice-based, context-specific, co-produced and locally situated knowledge, rather than just the conventional techno-scientific knowledge (Steward, 2012). Then, “creativity, resourcefulness, local capabilities, indigenous knowledge, social innovation and innovation for social inclusion” are relevant policy goals in order to overcome grand challenges in emerging economies (Kuhlmann & Ordóñez-Matamoros, 2017, p. 3). Here, Grand Challenges are societal and environmental, rather than just technical or organizational, and difficult to address because of their heterogeneous and multicausal nature (Kuhlmann & Rip, 2018). Furthermore, transformative innovation defies the narrow economic bias of technological innovation, which have also contributed to the configuration of the current societal and environmental challenges that we face nowadays (Godin, 2015; Gaglio et al., 2019; Kanger & Schot, 2019). 6.3.2

The Role of Government

System innovations require entrepreneurial governments. As Weber & Rohracher (2012) posits “‘transformation-oriented innovation policies’ which strategically focus on the transformation of whole systems of innovation, production and consumption” (Weber & Rohracher, 2012, p. 1038), whereby, according to Janssen (2019), a transformative policy can be defined as any “policy approach that strives for diversifying an economy’s industrial structure and underlying capabilities” (p. 79). Based on Janssen, for a policy to be transformative, it has to have three properties: (1) it focuses on specific ‘techno-economic pathways’ to support experimentation (selectivity); (2) it includes adaptation as a central process (process-orientation); and (3) it is a policy mix that combines complementary instruments to achieve policy goals (multi-instrumentality) (p. 79). According to Weber & Rohracher (2012), this kind of policy is issuecentred, i.e. it addresses particular problem areas or subsystems; and intends to align policy goals and strategies, facilitate joint societal visions, and foster experimentation and learning. According to Schot & Steinmueller (2018), given the long-term nature of transitions, anticipation is a central policy practice, in order to foresee future collateral consequences of policy intervention that might hinder transformation. In this framework, policy is not conceived here as an unequivocal unidirectional top-down type of intervention. Instead, it embraces reflexivity to enable

6

TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY …

115

the ongoing learning process that a bottom-up implementation policy focused on the demand side of innovation implies. Now, the question of what legitimizes innovation policy intervention is key for understanding the role of governments (Chaminade & Edquist, 2010). Regarding a TIP, the answer to the question is twofold: it is a matter of both policy goals and policy failures. On the one hand, regarding policy goals and priorities, which is in turn a political process, TIP has two main concerns: social inclusion and environmental sustainability. This is a substantial normative difference from previous innovation policy frames where economic growth and competitiveness were the main goal. Under transformative innovation, sustainability transitions require radical systemic changes on productions, consumption structures and cultural behaviour4 . Societal and environmental goals cannot be achieved through traditional governmental interventions, since the failures that might hamper them are more complex and involve more actors and interests. On the other hand, it is about the failures that need to be addressed through government intervention in order to enable the achievement of policy goals. TIP moves beyond the techno-economic way of thinking. It is no longer about traditional market and systemic failures when it comes to policy intervention (Woolthuis et al., 2005). Even though market and systemic failures5 are still important challenges for governments regarding the promotion of R&D and innovation, new failures need to be fixed when aiming at long-term system innovations for social inclusion and environmental sustainability (Weber & Rohracher, 2012). Table 6.1 synthesizes ‘transformational failures’, as proposed by Weber and Rohracher (2012) and by Schot & Steinmueller (2018). Rather than just a regulator to address these ‘transformational failures’, the government operates as facilitator, mediator or enabling actor (Kemp et al., 1998; cited by Bugge et al., 2018). By means of policy, the government mediates between the elements of the sociotechnical regime and its

4 This is a major and complex endeavour, and TIP literature might eventually have to go deeper into the psychological features of human behaviour at the individual level (see for example Bögel and Upham, 2018; Oreg and Sverdlik, 2018). 5 Market failures are: information asymmetries, knowledge spillover, externalization of costs, over-exploitation of commons. Systemic failures are: infrastructural failures, hard & soft institutional failures, interaction/network failure, capabilities’ failure (Woolthuis et al., 2005).

116

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

Table 6.1 Transformational Failures Transformational Failure

Description

Directionality

It is concerned with contributing with innovation to a particular direction or priorities for transitions It stresses the necessity to ensure that innovations are uptaken and appropriated by users It means that different policy levels must work together to contribute to transformation It refers to the need for constant monitoring and learning in order to introduce changes in the ongoing long-term process of transition

Demand articulation Policy coordination Reflexivity

Source Own elaboration based on Weber & Rohracher (2012), and Schot & Steinmueller (2018)

different levels. In other words, the role of policy is, as OECD (2015) posits, “to (…) identify potential complementarities between parts of the system and make the needed connections, while over the long-term to raise ambition and push the boundaries of the system so as to facilitate an efficient and effective transition” (p. 44). 6.3.3

Guiding Policy Principles

The TIP process is guided by normative values that define the essence of policy design and implementation. According to some authors, these include directionality, participation and inclusiveness, reflexivity and experimentation, and interdisciplinarity (COLCIENCIAS, 2018; Chataway et al., 2017). While directionality refers to outline orientations towards alternative development pathways, participation and inclusiveness suggests a bottomup perspective, where niches play a central role in scaling up innovations for sociotechnical transformation and where patient associations, users of STI, social movements, universities, local communities and associations, among others, play important roles. Reflexivity and experimentation in turn recognizes the bounded-rationality context where actors operate, so learning-by-doing emerges as a critical activity. Lastly, interdisciplinarity contributes to go beyond the underlying techno-economic rationales that have been predominant in innovation policies (Schot & Steinmueller, 2018).

6

TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY …

117

Transformative innovation in principle recognizes the possible negative externalities of R&D and technology, as stated before. This acknowledgement is a call to think about a more direct approach to development by innovation policies in addressing societal challenges (Arocena & Sutz, 2017) and a more responsible and responsive research and innovation practice in order to address sustainability and societal issues. Such responsive practices must follow principles like inclusion, moderation, deliberation, modularity and flexibility, subsidiarity, adaptability, human capabilities, institutional capacities, institutional entrepreneurship, culture of transparency, tolerance and last but not least, the rule of law (Kuhlmann et al., 2016)6 . 6.3.4

TIP Instruments

New approaches to innovation policy demand alternative practices. According to Schot & Steinmueller (2018), TIP involves policy practices such as anticipation; experimentation; learning; and intermediationto foster interaction among actors. These practices require in turn a new set of policy instruments and combinations of them (policy mix) oriented towards sustainability transitions (Kivimaa & Kern, 2017; Kern et al., 2019). Even though there is a growing need for new (systemic) innovation policy instruments, traditional ones are still dominant today in policy practice, especially financial instruments in emerging economies (Smits & Kuhlmann, 2004, pp. 15–16). This type of instruments are important, but addressing grand societal and environmental challenges requires new and more appropriate innovation policy instruments, regarding the complex, multicausal, heterogeneous, contested and non-linear nature of these issues (Kuhlmann & Rip, 2018). Moving from classical and systemic instruments, TIP would entail a new set of policy instruments. Some examples of these instruments are the socio-technical experiment, innovation intermediation, transitions management, transition arenas, producer–user network, strategic niche management, among others (Steward, 2012, p. 341). For instance, strategic niche management (SNM) has been discussed in the literature 6 An additional set of principles regarding the narrow approach on transformative policy can be found in Janssen (2019, p. 80), who outlines a normative framework to assess the design and potential impact of transformative policy in terms of policy organization and orientation.

118

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

as a broader policy strategy. It has the purpose to bring about sustainable innovation transitions by creating and modulating technological niches in a bottom-up perspective of endogenous steering, “or steering from within” (Schot & Geels, 2008, p. 538). These new set of policy practices and tools could indeed be organized according to three main stages of the policy cycle: design, implementation and evaluation. Regarding policy design practices such as identifying transition arenas, experiments, visions development, or transition pathways backcasting processes, planning monitoring, evaluation and revisions are useful tools in envisioning transition management strategies (Voß et al., 2009). According to Voß et al. (2009), during policy design, identifying transition arenas might facilitate creative transition-oriented interactions among different actors to prompt second-order learning, discussing and exchanging knowledge, practices and experiences for transformation. Here, the authors claim, particular types of mediation between actors are needed, going beyond traditional bilateral mediation. Thus, systemic intermediation emerges as a practice to “connect, translate and facilitate flows of knowledge” and innovation across and within the niche, network or system levels (van Lente et al., 2003, p. 248; Fischer & Newig, 2016; Kivimaa et al., 2019). In policy implementation, in turn, according to Voß et al. (2009), socio-technical experiments facilitate the exploration of possible transformative pathways according to the visions of actors in niches and to foster ‘learning-by-doing’ practices that contribute to adaptation and creation. Experimentation, of course, implies openness to both success and failure as possible outcomes of innovation practices, as part of a broader learning process (Vinck, 2017). Finally, transformative policy evaluation is an instrument that contributes to policy learning and legitimacy. For the case of TIP, Boni, Giachi & Molas-Gallart (2019) propose a formative evaluation approach to assess and improve policy design and implementation in a participatory and inclusive way. The authors argue that this sort of approach might be more suited for the experimental and reflexive character of TIP, especially when this kind of policy includes multiple policy instruments that reinforce each other, making it difficult to clearly identify and accredit impacts to one or other instrument. According to the authors, a formative approach better addresses the worth of policy intervention in the making, paying more attention to the theory of change of TIP in the long-term. Evaluation models to assess innovation programs aimed at socio-technical

6

TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY …

119

transitions must develop multi-level approaches in order to address the governance entanglements and complexity that come with the interaction of multiple interests and actors in sustainability transitions (Arnold, 2018). Thus, based on the features taken from different works on the topic as the ones highlighted above, we propose the following definition for a TIP: it is a set of public actions and instruments, through which governments mediate and mobilize resources towards more sustainable and inclusive sociotechnical systems via the promotion of knowledge and innovation production, diffusion and use with a long-term perspective. Having arrived at a comprehensive definition of TIP as the one proposed, in the following section we discuss the main challenges in translating TIP conceptual tenets into practice in the context of emerging economies. For so doing, we study the case of Colombia as an illustrative example.

6.4 From Theory to Practice. TIP Implementation in the Case of Colombia Here, we depict how the implementation of the TIP approach looks like in the case of Colombia. We choose the Social Appropriation of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (SASTI Policy henceforth) implemented in the country since 2005 as an illustrative case. Although this SASTI Policy was designed and implemented long before the TIP concept appeared in the academic and policy scenes, it was later presented explicitly ex post facto as such by the Administrative Department of Science, Technology and Innovation (COLCIENCIAS henceforth by its acronym in Spanish) in the framework of the National STI Policy launched in 2018 (‘Libro Verde 2030’, COLCIENCIAS, 2018), which had fundamental conceptual support from the SPRU’s consortium. We believe that this SASTI Policy has indeed some key features of a TIP as the ones discussed above. For this reason we use it as a relevant case to be analysed regarding typical TIP operationalization challenges in emerging economies. To develop this illustrative case, we consulted policy papers, scientific articles, legal documents and interviews with actors involved directly and indirectly in the design and implementation of the SASTI Policy in Colombia. In this case, we focus on two key elements for assessing

120

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

the plausibility of the TIP discourse in emerging economies as is understood in literature today: the role played by stakeholders and the intrinsic features of the corresponding policy instruments implemented in the period observed (2005–2019). While the first analysis is based on the concept of Institutional Entrepreneurs developed by DiMaggio (1988), the second followed the stages defined in the Path-transformative heuristic developed by Pinzón-Camargo, OrdoñezMatamoros, & Kuhlmann (2020). To have a better understanding of this case, we divide it into two stages characterizing the SASTI Policy. The first stage was the SASTI Policy as designed in 2010, and the second referring to its implementation up until today (2020). The selection of the SASTI Policy as a TIP for the purpose of the intended analysis relies on the fact that it was originally conceived to address pressing grand societal and environmental challenges affecting Colombia for decades. It is now seen even more urgent in the context of the peace agreement achieved a couple of years ago after 50 years of conflict. The success of both sustainable and inclusive development goals aimed by such agreement requires indeed deep transformations, demanding tackling social concerns, and therefore new perspectives on the role of STI policies themselves (Ordóñez-Matamoros et al., 2018). 6.4.1

Origins of the SASTI Policy

The SASTI Policy could be understood as a path-transformative process that began with the emergence of the concept of ‘Social Appropriation’ in the framework of the first Misión de Sabios in the mid-90 s. There, the concept was referred to activities linked with processes of STI diffusion and communication. In 2005 COLCIENCIAS enacted the SASTI Policy following the understanding of the social appropriation from the Misión de Sabios. This policy was then endorsed in 2008 by the National Promotion Policy of Research and Innovation, (Colombia Construye y Siembra Futuro by its name in Spanish). These elements depict a preformation phase for the SASTI Policy in 2010. From the organizational perspective of the field conditions (Battilana et al., 2009), a strong organizational heterogeneity featured the environment when the SASTI Policy began. At that moment, COLCIENCIAS was going through an institutional transformation. This entity

6

TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY …

121

was moving from a Public Institute towards an Administrative Department, which meant an upgrading in the national institutional hierarchy within the executive branch. According to an interviewee, this modification meant a new unstable institutional environment for COLCIENCIAS, however. This entity was full of tensions both inside and outside for political reasons, as it was increasingly attracting much more political attention than in the past. Elements in the preformation phase pointed out before, and the organizational heterogeneity at COLCIENCIAS were used by two actors as a critical juncture to introduce their vision of change through the SASTI Policy. These actors, we claim, played the role of institutional entrepreneurs (IEs) as the ones depicted by DiMaggio (1988). They belonged to the Directorate of Science, Communication and Culture Division at COLCIENCIAS and were crucial to design and foster the SASTI Policy. These IEs were looking for an alternative vision to the idea of knowledge diffusion and science communication established in COLCIENCIAS for many years (De Greiff & Maldonado, 2011) in the preformation phase. This alternative vision introduced explicitly the intention to promote the active participation of the civil society in knowledge production according to their concerns (COLCIENCIAS, 2010; De Greiff & Maldonado, 2011). To introduce their vision, these actors used tactics such as discursive framing, allies finding (Battilana et al., 2009), networking (Brouwer & Huitema, 2018) andself-reinforcing mechanisms (Pierson, 2000). These tactics marked the formation phase in this path-transformative process. Table 6.2 describes these tactics. These two IEs introduced a divergent change in COLCIENCIAS based on their vision of change. Two elements featured it. The first one was the development of a direct relationship between local communities in rural regions in Colombia, research groups and COLCIENCIAS, shaped by an active role from the local communities. The dominant institutional setting before the SASTI Policy gave a passive role to the local communities. The second element was the idea of using STI to address social concerns involving civil society directly. The divergent change introduced by these two IEs fostered the emergence and realigning of practices inside COLCIENCIAS, with the research groups and local communities. For instance, inside COLCIENCIAS, budget and legal procedures had to be modified to acknowledge

122

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

Table 6.2 Institutional Entrepreneurs tactics at the SASTI Policy Tactic

Description

Discursive framing

The complexity of the political negotiations to approve a policy, fostered the two actors to use the label of ‘Strategy’ instead of ‘Policy’. Thus, it was easier and faster to have the approach approved, with policy guidelines and actions in a National Strategy rather than in a National Policy They used the logic framework approach promoted by the National Planning Department (DNP, by its acronym in Spanish) The team framed the SASTI Policy (‘Strategy’) in terms of efficiency and maximization to find support inside COLCIENCIAS by the decision-makers They looked for allies to support their vision. Both inside and outside COLCIENCIAS. Some internal allies were the General Subdirector, and the directorate directors. Outside COLCIENCIAS, some allies were the Parque Explora from Medellín, the STI museum Maloka from Bogotá, the academia and the Inter-American Development Bank. These allies could be understood as coalitions Processes of networking were carried out after finding strategic allies to support the vision of change. Among different activities which illustrate this strategy, the National Fora of Social Appropriation of STI was crucial to build and strengthen the Institutional Entrepreneurs’ networks They reinforced the vision of the SASTI Policy including it in other relevant policy documents such as the National Development Plan for the period 2010–2014 (DNP, 2011a ; Salazar et al., 2014; Pinzón-Camargo & Ordóñez-Matamoros, Forthcoming) Although the vision of change introduced by the IEs diverged from the understanding of Social Appropriation before 2010, they kept the concept to build upon the built, which coincides with the self-reinforcing mechanism described by Pierson (2000) as the institutional density of politics

Allies finding

Networking

Self-reinforcing mechanisms

Source Own elaboration. a National Development Plans are the most critical policy framework for each period of government. They provide the compass to guide the design and development of different policy programs and tools.

6

TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY …

123

the informality in rural areas of Colombia where some of those communities are placed; regarding researchers and local community leaders, the COLCIENCIAS’ team had to improve their discursive skills to achieve an effective communication with those actors; finally, direct relationships between researchers and local community leaders emerged. 6.4.2

SASTI Policy Implementation

Once the SASTI Policy design was accepted by both COLCIENCIAS and other key external actors, who played the role of allies, its formal implementation began. The tactics promoted by the founding actors were crucial to sustaining the vision of change introduced in the Policy in its inception. Some of those tactics were oriented to contrast the vision before and after the Policy. First, they invested important efforts in making salient the advantages of the current one. This discussion was framed by academic articles (De Greiff & Maldonado, 2011; Lozano Borda & Pérez-Bustos, 2012). Second, they did public activities to open up discussions about the Policy (strategically called ‘Strategy’) to gain some legitimacy (COLCIENCIAS, 2011). Third, the Policy was formalized in print documents and spread among the current and potential allies at the national and local levels. The central instruments in this stage were two key programs (Programs henceforth) called Ideas para el Cambio (IC) and A Ciencia Cierta (ACC). The first program began in 2012 to foster the application of STI to address social challenges directly (MinCiencias, 2018a), and it has had five versions. The second one was launched in 2013 to make visible experiences where communities had to use innovation to overcome challenges in their realm (MinCiencias, 2020). It has had four versions. These Programs work by public calls giving public funds and technical support to the local communities. They were designed to develop and reinforce niches (just á la Schot & Geels, 2008). Thus, while IC is oriented to develop niches, ACC tries to identify niches to be supported. In table 6.3 below, some examples of projects funded by the two programmes with transformative potential are included. In these programs, the participation of other public entities has been regular through institutional agreements, which is considered a key tactic. The added value of these Programs, according to community leaders and researchers involved, have been (a) the work based on the community concerns; (b) the incentives to develop links between researchers and local

124

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

Table 6.3 Examples of projects funded by the programs Ideas para el Cambio and A Ciencia Cierta Year

Program

Public Call

Challenge (C) /Initiative (I)

Project

2012

Ideas para el Cambio

Water

2013

Ideas para el Cambio

Pacífico Pura Energía (Pacific, pure energy)

2016

A Ciencia Cierta

Sustainable use and biodiversity conservation

2018

A Ciencia Cierta

Community Conservation of Strategic Ecosystems

C: Unemployment Food Security and inefficient through fish water resources use farming under community participation model C: Communities Solar energy for without access to community electric power development at Unión Balsalito Rescue and I: Strengthening Conservation of initiatives linked Native Potatoes with the sustainable use and biodiversity conservation which using STI solved a socioeconomic problem Marine-Coastal I: Strengthening protection of communities ecosystems at the whose work contributed to the municipality of conservation of the Timbiquí, Cauca through ecosystem by the sustainable use of use of STI solid waste derived from coconut production

Source Colciencias (2014, 2015), MinCiencias (2016, 2017, 2018b, 2019)

communities; (c) the appropriation of the role of STI in the community process; and (d) the empowerment brought by the COLCIENCIAS support. These Programs have evolved as an experimental process. An analysis of Terms of Reference (ToR) for each version of the Programs showed how each ToR included and corrected elements in the guidelines to achieve an improved version (Pinzón-Camargo & Centeno, In press). Some interviewees suggest that the ToRs have evolved in a trial and error process (i.e. experimentation á la Voß et al., 2009).

6

TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY …

125

These Programs have worked as self-reinforcing mechanisms of the overarching SASTI Policy. Thus, first, the SASTI Policy has kept the Programs in recent years despite the COLCIENCIAS and Colombian Government political changes. Second, results by the public calls of these Programs contributed to sustain and legitimize the Programs, the SASTI Policy vision, and to engage former participants as new allies. Third, despite the multiple institutional changes that took place at COLCIENCIAS, the SASTI Policy kept its support not only by keeping the Programs alive but also the vision of change introduced by the two IEs at the Directorate in 2010. Finally, a legitimized SASTI Policy sustains the Programs and the other way around, where the loop is maintained as far as, according to interviewees from COLCIENCIAS, ‘the only way to keep the Strategy is showing results based on the Strategy programs’. An analysis of this illustrative case shows that, (a) in the policy design stage, the SASTI Policy worked as a Transition Arena, providing the framework to provoke interplays among different actors (Government, Academia and Civil Society). The Programs could be classified as a form of strategic niche management considering their role to foster and enforce niches from a bottom-up approach in local communities in Colombia; (b) in the policy implementation stage it was illustrated in this case how ToRs contributed in the systemic intermediation of the visions from actors at different levels (actors at municipalities in Colombia, Universities, and Policy-makers at governmental entities), and to implement the public calls following an experimental process. We did not find information about the transformative policy evaluation pointed out in Sect. 3.4, and their corresponding lessons, however, as they have not been formally evaluated yet. We want to remark the usefulness of the Institutional Entrepreneurship literature to study this case. It is because TIP not only relies on the policies and practices, but also in the tactics implemented by key actors, particularly those who want to change the rules of the game to bring about sustainability transitions (Farla et al., 2012; Pacheco et al., 2010). 6.4.3

Main Challenges for Implementation and Success

TIPs like the above presented are however challenged by the particularities of the Colombian context regarding policy-making. In the following sections we will briefly discuss some of the main controversies regarding SASTI policy to the date. We focus on three main policy milestones:

126

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

the 2010 version of the SASTI policy, the 2018 so-called ‘transformative innovation policy’ (El ÿ 2030), and the new SASTI policy draft. The 2010 Version of the SASTI Policy. Since the beginning, the SASTI Policy lacks appropriate political support. It struggles indeed to be assigned enough financial resources for its implementation. The investment in calls for SASTI activities represented just 0.7% of the total COLCIENCIAS’ budget between 2011 and 2018, and out of 117 projects were submitted to the General System of Royalties (2013 to 2019), eleven (11) projects belong to SASTI (5) to Science Centers. There has been in the last 10 years a high concentration of SASTI activities in the most STI-qualified regions (60.4%), but they have not been fully funded by COLCIENCIAS. In the case of SASTI activities funded by Colciencias, there is a concentration (30.3%) in emerging territories, such as Bolívar, Risaralda, Boyacá, Cauca and Cundinamarca. In the so-called, backwarded territories in terms of STI capabilities (Putumayo, Arauca, Guainía, Guaviare, Vaupés and Vichada) there is a low presence of development of STI appropriation activities according to the inquiry developed by FES foundation and Maloka (2019). This indicates that the policy deserves more implementation resources taking into account that it is not specially focused on ‘weak territories’, which can compensate the uneven balance of potential transformations that can be triggered on well-qualified STI regions driven by the private sector, or other non-governmental actors. There are still important capability gaps between sub regional governments in Colombia regarding STI. Particularly, this reflects on a poor understanding of the scope and possible products, results and impacts of SASTI policies and projects. For example, in early 2020 La Guajira governor requested the Ministry of Science and Technology to disapprove a SASTI project, amounting to 18.000 million COP (approximately 5 Million US dollars), because it was considered inviable, impertinent and too expensive. Projects are often poorly designed or considered a misuse of resources, missing the transformative potential of SASTI Policy for local communities. Another sign of lack of appropriate political support to a proper TIP in Colombia is the fact that there is still today an open debate on the plausibility of the name given to the SASTI Policy, and on the fact that its name does not match with what it really does. As explained before, the current

6

TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY …

127

SASTI Policy has its roots in the first Mision de Sabios who, rather than directly advocating for and innovation policy for social inclusion and/or sustainable development, which at the time was seen as a ‘luxury’ left only developed countries, advocated for improving the national appropriation of STI via processes of STI diffusion and communication (Escobar, 2014). From that moment, policies, strategies, programs and policy instruments have been framed in such a way that they end up strengthening the use of the concept as a self-reinforcement mechanism (See table 6.2), increasing by so-doing the institutional density of politics around the concept of SASTI (Pierson, 2000). Indeed, as presented in the previous section, both the concept of SASTI as framed in its associated ‘Strategy’ encompass a de facto broader range of instruments and goals involving a more active policy intervention aimed at direct social impact and transformation. In other words, the tactics of framing a truly TIP as merely a ‘SASTI Strategy’ reveal the difficult political and institutional environment characterizing Colombian STI (and development) policy arena, which would certainly oppose an STI policy aiming explicitly to social inclusion and/or sustainable development. For this reason, more than a concept, Social Appropriation is a label, a tag, a shield or a niche strategically framed by key IEs to protect the indented TIP. The reason behind: a dominating neo-liberal perspective at all levels of government and society, predominant back in those days and still today (Ordonez-Mamoros et al., 2018). Despite the struggles to position the appropriation concept and the SASTI policy in the STI national institutional arrangement since the 90’s, the inquiry endeavours between 2008 and 2020 regarding this matter, just reached a systematic collection and analysis for following-up its programs and updating the policy in 2020. The purpose of such endeavours, from which even has produced indicators to evaluate the effect of SASTI practices (Daza et al., 2017), has not addressed any proper stringent policy evaluation. The policy, since 2010—when it was reinforced the 2005 policy under the name of strategy—has been implemented with a large margin of uncertainty and intuition, given that, the very local conceptualization about appropriation of STI and its operationalization in the policy-making, has been in a way, disconnected from the innovation policy and governance field. In terms of effectiveness, the broad indetermination of what a policy is, between the actors who have been concerned about this subject, has made impossible to understand what is at least an approximate state of the transformations produced by 15 years

128

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

of SASTI policy in Colombia. An ex-post policy assessment is necessary, otherwise the overshadowing of such local intuitive version of TIP given the massiveness of neoclassical economics underlying the Colombian STI policy-making, would remain pervasive in the STI national policy and institutional arrangement. The 2018 SASTI/TIP - ‘El Libro Verde’ 2030 Before continuing the assessment of the viability of implementing TIPs in specific contexts such as the one of Colombia, it is worth mentioning that, as a typical ‘napoleonic’ State, where its institutional framework heavily depends on what is written and mandated by the constitution and other legal documents, policy documents play in Colombia very important roles to account for the existence (or lack thereof) of public policies and for producing (or not) effects in society from government interventions (Peters, 2008). Having said that, in the el Libro Verde 2030, the main background document supporting the corresponding national STI policy, the SASTI ‘Strategy’ was explicitly regarded as a ‘Frame 3’ type of Policy (pp. 22), that is, in the jargon used by the SPRU consortium’s narrative a proper TIP. There, Ideas para el Cambio (IC) and A Ciencia Cierta (ACC) were seen as ongoing programs that had a transformative potential that needed to be both expanded (to broaden their scope and coverage) and accelerated (to eliminate barriers for speeding up its contribution to transformative change). However, anything depicted in such a policy document (el Libro Verde) did not seem to have a clear implementation future. Six factors explain its weak situation. First, this policy document did not get enough support from external entities (beyond COLCIENCIAS) in other sectors besides the STI sector (and even there, only partially). Second, it had a strong normative tone making it more a rhetoric list of principles than a proper guidelines document, which makes it difficult to assess its specific intended contributions. Third, it did not define a clear implementation plan, lacking clear goals, targets, responsibilities assigned to specific actors or approximate budget. Fourt, this policy did not have a clear enforcement mechanism. Fifth, it was enacted using one of the weakest legal instruments in the Colombia legal and institutional framework: a mere conceptual rapport. Last but not least, it was officially launched a few months before the end of the incumbent government, which was then defeated in the presidential election by the opposing party. Only after

6

TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY …

129

two years of its official launch event, the National Government has begun a National STI policy design, where the ‘green book’ does not appear to have a central role, and where its future therefore looks uncertain. The Libro Verde document has even disappeared from the COLCIENCIAS website… The New SASTI Policy draft At the time this chapter is written, there is a new background SASTI policy guidelines draft, which is in principle an important manifestation of the political will at least at COLCIENCIAS, (which at the beginning of 2020, under the new government, became the new Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation) to continue with the implementation of this kind of TIPs policies in Colombia. Similar to the former Libro Verde background document, the new document has some limitations that are problematic from the policy viability point of view. First, the document, titled ‘policy guidelines’, does not provide a sufficient justification for the new guidelines, nor what are the improvements of these new guidelines with respect to the previous ones. Second, the document has a rather broad and abstract conceptualization of SASTI and the innovation practices surrounding it. Finally, the document has a rather normative character with little insights as to how to achieve its policy goals. Despite efforts from the epistemic community supporting the SASTI Policy in Colombia, who advocate for performing an evaluation of the programme to visibilize its highly positive effects, in general a good understanding about its practices, experiences, and overarching rationales of the SASTI thinking and policy is still lacking. Daza et. al (2017) proposed 10 assessment dimensions for SASTI activities in Colombia, among them ‘Inclusion of vulnerable social groups’ however. The rest of the dimensions seem quite aseptic in political terms, which means that there are not clear or specific transformative directions or restorative intentions highlighted to support the SASTI TIP. Arguably, the current 2020 SASTI policy guidelines share similar weaknesses of the former Libro Verde Policy document. The directionality for transformations are not clear. There are no explicit references to environmental or social justice, nor a reference to overcome inequality or poverty, which is at least a basic often present intention in transformative innovation policies. Additionally, the guidelines do not present an implementation plan, either instruments or prospective evaluation criteria. The only hope resulting from the current effort is that the policy document is

130

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

written and promoted by the ruling government. However, that is paradoxically the reason why the new version of the SASTI Policy will not have support from the new government after 2022. This is typical in the Colombian institutional and political framework and will arguably be the same in the decades to come… The challenges posed by the current Covid_19 pandemy, which has led to increased even further poverty and inequality in Colombia, may represent a key opportunity for things to be done differently, around the world, including Colombia. This, however, is yet to be seen.

6.5

Conclusions

The analysis of any innovation policy approach involves the identification of key challenges, limitations and opportunities. In this section we highlight and reflect on some of them regarding the conceptual and practical dimensions of TIP, posing some questioning remarks regarding its tenets and applicability in the framework of the Colombian case, as depicted from the analysis of the SACS Policy design and implementation. For sodoing, we first discuss the need for a sharper conceptualization of the TIP, especially considering the specific context of colombia. Second, we discuss the challenges for transformative innovation policies to be effective in countries like Colombia. Finally, we discuss the role of politics in the policy process for transformation. 6.5.1

Need for a Sharper Conceptualization of the TIP

In our opinion, the transformative innovation policy literature has been discussing public policy without accounting for policy studies literature in depth. Furthermore, the ambiguity of some of the terms that emerge in TIP discussions might make it difficult to operationalize such an approach from a bottom-up policy perspective. This actually represents a constraint in the case of Colombia, a typical ‘napoleonic’ State where, in addition, language matters a whole lot, as Fischer & Forester (1993) would agree. The attempt to establish a national TIP approach in the country, the so-called Libro Verde 2030, lacked the material features that characterize a public policy applicable in the country: the definition of policy goals, strategies, instruments, indicators, resources, envisioned results and impacts, among other policy displays needed for operationalization (Ordóñez-Matamoros et al., 2013). In this regard, the implementation

6

TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY …

131

of the Libro Verde 2030 did not seem clear nor viable and, furthermore, it appears to be more of an abstract policy frame rather than a public policy in itself (Fagerberg, 2018), despite its meagre but positive effects. Responsibilities, policy goals, resources, policy instruments and inclusive governance must be clearly established in the TIP design if it is to be successfully implemented. The Colombian national government must also support the operationalization of the TIP with enough resources and political will. Recent efforts by the TIP Consortium were made in the context of the new international Misión de Sabios, in which prof. Johan Schot participated and managed to insert some TIP insights into the final report of this body. However, these recommendations are seen by local authorities as rather abstract and overly ambitious, and their implementation do not seem clear in the near future, as it happened with a previous Misión de Sabios in the 1990s. A subsequent effort was a report prepared by the TIP Consortium7 , highlighting the potential of the country to foster local transformative practices. In this case, we will ‘wait and see’ if the report receives enough attention by the national government. These are matters of both policy and politics in the operationalization process of TIP, which will be discussed later and in another paper further on. Furthermore, despite the existing efforts to develop transformative experiments in the regions of Colombia (University of Sussex & Colciencias, 2018), regional capabilities must be further created or enhanced, so that local communities are able to define and manage their own transformational priorities based on highly territorial discussed needs and potentials at the niche level. A lack of knowledge and understanding of the TIP challenges and opportunities is a constant in the Colombian context. There is indeed a growing need to build bridges between policy studies and sustainability transitions studies in our countries. A good example of this is the work of 7 See Schot, J. et al. (2020). Transforming Our World: Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. Proposal for a Colombian Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Programme of Experimentation with a Strong Regional Focus. TIPC Extended Policy Report Prepared for. the Colombian Misión de Sabios. Retrieved from: http://www.tipconsortium.net/ publication/transforming-our-world-implementing-the-sustainable-development-goals-pro posal-for-a-colombian-science-technology-and-innovation-policy-programme-of-experimen tation-with-a-strong-regional-focus/.

132

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

Kern et al. (2019), who view in the discussion of policy mix and policy instruments a relevant unit of analysis that might contribute to integrate the above mentioned fields. This is, as a matter of fact, a growing concern in sustainability transitions literature (Khöler et al., 2019). Next, we discuss some of the challenges for TIP on the practical ground, specifically related to the conditions for TIP implementation to be effective. Then, we will discuss the key role of politics in the process, which is considered a key challenge, inherent to the TIP logic. 6.5.2

Challenges for Transformative Innovation Policies to Be Effective

Successful implementation of TIPs will always remain a central matter. We highlight some ideas from Fagerberg (2018), who points out five challenges for such policies to be effective. For instance, according to the author, key factors affecting TIP include: setting direction, embracing opportunity, mobilizing stakeholders, holistic policy-making and improving governance. However, these challenges required to consider an additional lens, the role of the agency. Our reflection about the Colombian case shows how transformation endeavours do not emerge from an aleatory interaction of actors (Farla et al., 2012). We suggest focusing on the role of institutional entrepreneurs to understand the role of the agency in TIP (Pinzón et al., 2020). Their analysis will contribute to identifying both enabling conditions and strategies (Battilana et al., 2009) that these agents will require to set the direction f or the TIP’s vision to mobilize resources. Among different applications from a better understanding of institutional entrepreneurs strategies, we can highlight at least two. First, it will explain how the actors will embrace the opportunity of using global trends concerned with sustainability to strengthen their narratives around transformation. Second, it will support the design policy tools to mobilize stakeholders to build collective action for transformative innovation. Considering the role of the agency will bring a holistic policy-making approach, where the MLP and the Innovation System approaches will set the macro-level perspective, and the institutional entrepreneurship will cover the micro-level. Thus, it will be possible to get a broader perspective in policy-making and consider all the factors and actors that influence transformation processes.

6

TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY …

133

Finally, it is necessary to improve or reshape the governance for a TIP. Therefore, considered tentative governance for TIP will be required (Kuhlmann et al., 2019). It is because tentative governance will help to explain and unfold, as the authors posit, the “provisional, flexible, revisable, dynamic and open approaches to governance that include experimentation, learning, reflexivity and reversibility” (p. 1091). Regarding the Colombian case, the lenses of tentative governance will give fine-grained detail to fulfilling complementarities between techno-scientific large tendencies (landscape) and small-based indigenous innovative networks (niches). 6.5.3

The Role of Politics in the Policy Process for Transformation

Sociotechnical and system transformations, such as those resulting from sustainability transitions, are growing global concerns that need special attention by political science. That is the reason for the growing interest to better understand this topic from that perspective (Avelino et al., 2016; Khöler et al., 2019). After all, the definition of priorities and policy objectives is indeed a political process. When moving from traditional priorities such as economic growth and competitiveness, to new challenges like social inclusion, peace and environmental sustainability, the political variables become crucial as the policy processes become even more complex, where new losers and winners will result as a consequence of fostering sociotechnical sustainability transitions (Smith et al., 2005; Meadowcroft, 2009). We argue, however, that current literature on TIP still does not account deeply enough for the real politic that strongly influence agendasetting and implementation processes in the context of highly unequal and contested democracies like Colombia. Furthermore, the notion of technological innovation systems had already received several criticisms for overlooking the role of politics in sociotechnical transitions processes (Smith et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2010; Markard, 2015; Bergek et al., 2015). This situation is more salient if, like in the last section, we consider the relevant role of actors. For so doing, we must consider the centrality of actors to innovation in countries like Colombia. Some of them can often get involved in political practices, seeking to maintain a powerful privileged position that can eventually harm other actors and the environment (e.g. multinational enterprises) (Giuliani, 2018; Kanger & Schot, 2019). This is relevant

134

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

since as OECD (2015) acknowledges, “system innovation entails not just winners, but also losers, especially when old systems are replaced by new systems. Organizations with interests linked to old systems may resist and oppose the changes” (p. 11). Therefore, as Schot & Steinmueller (2018) claim, “the governance of transformative innovation should be recognized for what it is: a political process which should provide room for appraising and negotiating the development of a diverse set of pathways as well as making choices for specific ones” (p. 1562). The Colombian case illustrates this claim. This country is featured by a ‘natural resource-based economy’ (Andersen et al., 2018), deeply rooted in extractive and unsustainable industrial practices. Hence, transformations are much needed. Efforts like the National SASTI Policy studied were implemented and showed possibilities to embrace a new path, and a new organizational and institutional arrangement brought hope in that sense with the transformation of COLCIENCIAS into the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation in 2019. However, the new Ministry itself does not seem to count on enough support and political will by the President. Also, the Minister lacks the political clout to mobilize the various stakeholders interested in setting a new direction for STI in the country towards social inclusion and sustainability paths. The bitter cherry on the cake: as mentioned before, the first attempt to officially embrace a TIP framework (Libro Verde 2030) did not resist the change of administration in 2018, and the possibility of strengthening the Policy was forfeit. Further research on TIP needs to go deeper into the understanding of power dynamics in the context of TIP design and implementation and on how power interacts with knowledge and social challenges (Avelino et al., 2016), including the political endeavours needed for prompting just transitions in emerging economies (Swilling et al., 2016), particularly when it comes to TIP design and implementation (Ordonez-Matamoros, PinzónCamargo, Centeno and Andrade, forthcoming). Also, as mentioned before, literature on policy mixes for sustainability transitions (Kern et al., 2019) is a possible bridge to contribute to a better understanding of the political devices deployed by governments in order to address the sort of challenges that concern transformative innovation, and to integrate the policy language into innovation studies, particularly into transformative innovation. The case of Colombia analysed here therefore provided key new insights about what Transformative Innovation Policy entails in emerging

6

TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY …

135

economies, where it became clear that institutional and political variables, traditionally overlooked by mainstream literature, tend to play determinant roles. Since the debates addressed here leaves more questions than answers, in the following section we discuss some potential venues to better grasp the topic at hand.

6.6 Further Research on TIP Materialization and Perspectives In this chapter we reviewed and discussed the main features of TIP, bringing up the case of Colombia as an example of how it looks in such a contested and complex context of an emerging economy. The main contribution of this chapter is threefold: first, it contributes to the deconstruction of the developmental discussions that motivated the emergence of TIP, which would need to be contrasted with some insights from Latin American STS thinking that might nourish the ongoing construction of the concept. We will come back to this later. Second, the chapter reviews the main features of the TIP concept, as framed in the early literature on the topic. Finally, we intended to make a contribution by outlining how a de facto TIP looks in reality when it comes to implementation through specific policy instruments. Further research must address the issue of what is the relevant transformative innovation governance framework where politics are considered as a relevant variable. Such a governance framework has to take into account new heuristics, actors, knowledge, arenas, discourses, reflexive processes, principles, interactions and institutions. Also, there is further research needed regarding the scope and reach of transformations prompted by TIP, especially from a multi-level governance approach and institutional entrepreneurship on policy networks (Orozco et al., 2019). How to measure transformations is a remaining research challenge. Besides production and consumption structures, we believe that transformations can have an impact on local levels, setting conditions for inclusion and wellbeing. In other words, transformative innovation might not always be about huge radical systemic transformations, but local context based changes that improve people’s lives. One critique that may arise for transformative innovation is that it could be regarded as a fashionable concept or buzzword added to the long list of existing adjectives for innovation (technological, social, responsible, inclusive, etc.), i.e. the so called X-innovation terms that

136

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

emerge out of a continuous appropriation and contestation process (Gaglio et al., 2019). We acknowledge that the use of this new notion of transformative innovation might generate confusion among scholars considering the plethora of ‘X-Innovation terms’ that exist nowadays. We consider, however, that such appropriation and contestation dynamics can be fruitful for setting the agenda towards urgent challenges such as social exclusion and environmental degradation. From an appropriation point of view, TIP helps to channel off such challenges to policy and decision makers in a rather intelligible and strategic fashion. It is a process that seems to have had some effect in Colombia considering the growing popularity of TIP among academic circles. TIP narratives can be regarded as a vehicle for the popularization and diffusion of the idea of radical systemic change for sustainability transitions. This, however, is not a neutral endeavour, since TIP might entail the blind adoption by governments of global development agendas and policies not necessarily suited to the Colombian context. Therefore, public awareness is much needed. Regarding contestation, transformative and systems innovation is a reaction to the hegemonic techno-economic bias of innovation policies. Thus, TIP serves as a coherent narrative to challenge the dominant policy paradigms that give priority to competitiveness and economic growth over social inclusion and environmental sustainability (Cozzens et al., 2008). In addition, TIP must take distance from ‘solutionist’ happy-ending sort of narratives. It should rather focus on the normative substance of its process and the multiple directionalities that become possible towards social inclusion and sustainability. Following, three possible examples of epistemic referents for southern TIP whose transformative character has been somehow darkened by the inertia of geopolitics and economics of knowledge of the innovation policy field: 1) Since eleven years ago, the idea of Sumac Kawsay (good or pretty living) (Ortiz Fernández, 2009) has been a buzzing word in the academic world that denotes another way of social existence. This idea is an ancient worldview, a kind of philosophy that leads to the production and reproduction of democratic practices radically different to modernity and capitalism, laying down on the importance of collectivities, reciprocity and ontological equality regarding non-human beings.

6

TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY …

137

2) An upgrade of ideas from a considerable amount of ‘old’ Latin American authors8 framed as PLACTS (Pensamiento Latinoamericano en Ciencia Tecnología y Sociedad) can help to the epistemic turn for TIP in the south. These thinkers, proposed practical and political solutions coherent with a future of justice, equity and environmental responsibility for Latin America. For example, (i) a renewal of the idea of scientificism from Varvasky, (ii) an integration of more actors to the triangle government < - > S&T < - > productive structure from Sabato and Botana, and (iii) a broader Herrera’s S&T National Project could offer alternatives to contemporary versions of neo-Malthusian and neo-Schumpeterian perspectives (Sabato, 1975). 3) Latin American feminist STS (Pérez-Bustos et al., 2019), Social Ecology reflecting on science (Gudynas 2002, Gudynas, 2018) and Latin American STS on environmentalism (Vara, 2004, 2007, Delvenne et al., 2013) are few of the contemporary referents that present empirical cases, reality tests and theoretical reflections which would help to think on more pertinent innovation policies for transformations in countries like Colombia. Policies that often are static and promote entrepreneurship and productivity among other economic growth logics. All of the referents above can be useful for reflecting on more pertinent innovation policies taking into account the history of the continent, the geopolitics of knowledge and the current political economy of Latin America. Likewise, the work of current prominent scholars from South Africa9 about the transformative character of innovation policy, are in our opinion, more accurate for the understanding and intervention of realities in emerging economies than global agendas of TIP. One epistemological challenge for further research in TIP for the south can be oriented for the following questions: (i) is it fruitful or sterile to think innovation policy with aspirational transformative characters that 8 Amílcar Herrera, Jorge Sábato, Oscar Varsavsky, and Natalio Botana in Argentina; José Leite Lopes and Helio Jaguaribe in Brazil; Miguel Wionczek and Luisa M. Leal in Mexico; Francisco Sagasti in Peru; Máximo Halty Carrere in Uruguay; Marcel Roche in Venezuela, Osvaldo Sunkel in Chile, Félix Moreno in Colombia, among others. 9 Such as Rasigan Maharajh from Tshwane University of Technology and Stellenbosch University, and Erika-Kraemer-Mbula from University of Johannesburg.

138

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

renews the idea of liberation of denied alterities? or (ii) are we in a time that poses an opportunity for those historically denied alterities to enforce their own transformations based on their knowledge, and practical ongoing emancipatory innovation boosted by respectful policies, and more sensitive ways of the encounter between governments, scholars, scientists, engineers and communities? These questions are open to be addressed conceptually and empirically.

References Andersen, A. D., Marìn, A., & Simensen, E. (2018). Innovation in natural resource-based industries: A pathway to development? Introduction to a special issue. Innovation and Development, 8(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10. 1080/2157930X.2018.1439293 Andrade-Sastoque, E., & Jiménez, J. (2016). Trayectoria socio-técnica de las relaciones entre extractivismo y desarrollo sostenible: El caso de la Colosa en Colombia. Redes, 22(43), 33–64. Arnold, E., Åström, T., Glass, C., & De Scalzi, M. (2018). How should we evaluate complex programmes for innovation and socio-technical transitions? Technopolis Group. United Kingdom Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2017). Science, technology and innovation for what? Exploring the democratization of knowledge as an answer. In S. Kuhlmann, & G. Ordoñez-Matamoros (Eds.), Research Handbook on Innovation Governance for Emerging Economies (pp. 377–404). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Avelino, F., Grin, J., Pel, B., & Jhagroe, S. (2016). The politics of sustainability transitions. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 18(5), 557–567. Barre, R., Henriques, L., Pontikakis, D., & Weber, K. M. (2013). Measuring the integration and coordination dynamics of the European Research Area. Science and Public Policy, 40(2), 187–205. Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65–107. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015. 07.003 Bögel, P. M., & Upham, P. (2018). Role of psychology in sociotechnical transitions studies: Review in relation to consumption and technology acceptance. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 28, 122–136. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.01.002

6

TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY …

139

Boni, S., Giachi, S., & Molas-Gallart, J. (2019). Towards a framework for transformative innovation policy evaluation. TIPC Research Report. Ingenio (CSIC-Universitat Politècnica de València); SPRU, University of Sussex. Bortagaray, I., & Ordóñez-Matamoros, G. (2012). Introduction to the special issue of the review of policy research: Innovation, innovation policy, and social inclusion in developing countries. Review of Policy Research, 29(6). Brouwer, S., & Huitema, D. (2018). Policy entrepreneurs and strategies for change. Regional Environmental Change, 18(5), 1259–1272. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10113-017-1139-z Bugge, M., Coenen, L., & Branstad, A. (2018). Governing socio-technical change: Orchestrating demand for assisted living in ageing societies. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 2018, 468–479. Chaminade, C., & Edquist, C. (2010). Rationales for public policy intervention in the innovation process: Systems of innovation approach. In R. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, & P. Shapira, The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy: An International Research Handbook (pp. 95–114). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Chataway, J., Chux, D., Kanger, L., Ramirez, M., Schot, J., & Steinmueller, E. (2017). Developing and enacting transformative innovation policy. School of Business, Management and Economics, University of Sussex. COLCIENCIAS. (2010). Estrategia Nacional de Apropiación Social de la Ciencia, la Tecnología y la Innovación. COLCIENCIAS. COLCIENCIAS. (2011). Foro Nacional de Apropiación Social de la Ciencia y la Tecnología. Ciencia, Tecnología y Democracia: Reflexiones en torno a la apropiación social del conocimiento (p. 142). COLCIENCIAS; Universidad EAFIT. COLCIENCIAS. (2014). Ideas para el Cambio: Agua. Colciencias. COLCIENCIAS. (2015). Ideas para el Cambio: Pacífico Pura Energía. Colciencias. COLCIENCIAS. (2018). Libro Verde 2030: Política Nacional de Ciencia e Innovación para el Desarrollo Sostenible. COLCIENCIAS. https://mincie ncias.gov.co/sites/default/files/libroverde2030-5julio-web.pdf Cozzens, S. E. (2007). Distributive justice in science and technology policy. Science and Public Policy, 34(2), 85–94. Cozzens, S., Gatchair, S., Kim, K.-S., Ordóñez, G., & Supnithadnaporn, A. (2008). Knowledge and Development. In E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (pp. 787–812). MIT Press. Daniels, C., Schot, J., Chataway, J., Ramirez, M., Steinmueller, E., & Kanger, L. (2020). Transformative innovation policy: Insights from Colombia, Finland, Norway, South Africa and Sweden (Chapter 2). In M. B. G. Cele, T.

140

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

M. Luescher, & A. Wilson Fadiji (Eds.), Innovation Policy at the Intersection: Global Debates and Local Experiences (pp. 9–30). Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council. Daza-Caicedo, S., Maldonado, O., Arboleda-Castrillón, T., Falla, S., Moreno, P., Tafur-Sequera, M., & Papagayo, D. (2017). Hacia la medición del impacto de las prácticas de apropiación social de la ciencia y la tecnología: propuesta de una batería de indicadores. História Ciências Saúde-Manguinhos, 24(1), 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-59702017000100004 DEFRA. (2010). Defra’s Evidence investment strategy 2010–2013 and beyond. Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs. https://assets.pub lishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_d ata/file/69292/pb13346-eis-100126.pdf Delvenne, P., Vasen, F., & Vara, A. M. (2013). The “soy-ization” of Argentina: The dynamics of the “globalized” privatization regime in a peripheral context. Technology in society, 35(2), 153–162. Diercks, G., Larsen, H., & Steward, F. (2019). Transformative innovation policy: Addressing variety in an emerging policy paradigm. Research Policy, 48, 880– 894. DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 3–21). Ballinger Publishing Co. DNP. (2011). Plan Nacional de Desarrollo: Prosperidad para todos—Más empleo, menos probreza y más seguridad (2010–2014). Departamento Nacional de Planeación. Dutrénit, G., & Sutz, J. (Eds.). (2014). National innovation systems. Edward Elgar Publishing. Dworkin, R. (2017). Equality of resources (pp. 113–170). Routledge. Escobar, A. (2014). Sentipensar con la tierra: nuevas lecturas sobre desarrollo, territorio y diferencia, Ediciones Unaula. Fagerberg, J. (2018). Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment on transformative innovation policy. Research Policy, 47 (9), 1568– 1576. Farla, J., Markard, J., Raven, R., & Coenen, L. (2012). Sustainability transitions in the making: A closer look at actors, strategies and resources. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(6), 991–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2012.02.001 Fischer, F. & Forester, J. (Eds). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Duke University Press. Fischer, L.-B., & Newig, J. (2016). Importance of actors and agency in sustainability transitions: A systematic exploration of the literature. Sustainability, 8(5), 476. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050476

6

TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY …

141

Fujimura, J. H. (1987). Constructing do-able problems in cancer research: Articulating alignment. Social Studies of Science, 17 (2), 257–293. Gaglio, G., Godin, B., & Pfotenhauer, S. (2019). X-Innovation: Re-Inventing innovation again and again. Novation, 1, 1–16. Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1257–1274. Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 897–920. Geels, F. W. (2005a). Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(6), 681–696. Geels, F. W. (2005b). Technological transitions and system innovations. A co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing. Geels, F., Elzen, B., & Green, K. (2004). General introduction: System innovation and transitions to sustainability. In B. Elzen, F. Geels, & K. Green (Eds.), System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability Theory, Evidence and Policy (pp. 1–16). Edward Elgar Publishing. Giuliani, E. (2018). Regulating global capitalism amid rampant corporate wrongdoing—Reply to “Three frames for innovation policy.” Research Policy, 47 (9), 1577–1582. Godin, B. (2015). Innovation contested: The idea of innovation over the centuries. Routledge. Godin, B., & Vinck, D. (2017). Critical studies of innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing. Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term transformative change. Routledge. Gudynas, E. (2002). “Ciencia, Incertidumbre y pluralidad.” Ecología, Economía y Etica del desarrollo sustentable. Buenos Aires: Edit. EMV-CTERA. Gudynas, E. (2018). Múltiples paradojas: Ciencia, incertidumbre y riesgo en las políticas y gestión ambiental de los extractivismos. Polisemia, 14(25), 5–37. https://doi.org/10.26620/uniminuto.polisemia.14.25.2018.1-33 Janssen, M. (2019). What bangs for your buck? Assessing the design and impact of Dutch transformative policy. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 138, 78–94. Kanger, L., & Schot, J. (2019). Deep transitions: Theorizing the long-term patterns of sociotechnical change. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 32, 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.07.006 Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2), 175–198.

142

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

Kern, F., Rogge, K., & Howlett, M. (2019). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies. Research Policy, 48(10), 1–15. Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2017). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45(1), 205–217. Kivimaa, P., Boon, W., Hyysalo, S., & Klerkx, L. (2019). Towards a typology of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: A systematic review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 48(4), 1062–1075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.res pol.2018.10.006 Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., & Wells, P. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004 Kuhlmann, S., Edler, J., Ordóñez-Matamoros, G., Randles, S., Walhout, B., Gough, C., & Lindner, R. (2016). Responsibility Navigator. Governance framework for Responsible Research and Innovation. Res-AGorA Project. Kuhlmann, S., & Ordóñez-Matamoros, G. (Eds.). (2017). Research handbook on innovation governance for emerging economies. Edward Elgar Publishing. Kuhlmann, S., & Rip, A. (2018). Next-generation innovation policy and grand challenges. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 448–454. Kuhlmann, S., Stegmaier, P., & Konrad, K. (2019). The tentative governance of emerging science and technology—A conceptual introduction. Research Policy, 48(5), 1091–1097. Lozano Borda, M., & Pérez-Bustos, T. (2012). La apropiación social de la ciencia y la tecnología en la literatura Iberoamericana. Una revisión entre 2000 y 2010. Redes, 18(35), 45–74. Markard, J., Hekkert, M., & Jacobsson, S. (2015). The technological innovation systems framework: Response to six criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 16, 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.07.006 Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 4, 955–967. Mazzucato, M., & Semieniuk, G. (2017). Public financing of innovation: New questions. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 24–48. Meadowcroft, J. (2009). What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9097-z MinCiencias. (2016). 2016—Uso sostenible y conservación de la Biodiversidad. Retrieved August 18, 2020, from A Ciencia Cierta: https://acienciacierta.min ciencias.gov.co/index.php/concursos/bio-2016

6

TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY …

143

MinCiencias. (2017). Rescate y Conservación de Papas Nativas (Ventaquemada – Boyacá). Retrieved August 18, 2020, from A Ciencia Cierta: https://bit. ly/34i4hYe MinCiencias. (2018a, January 26). ¿Qué es Ideas para el Cambio? Retrieved July 9, 2020, from Ideas para el Cambio: https://ideasparaelcambio.minciencias. gov.co/articulo/que-es-ideas-para-el-cambio MinCiencias. (2018b). 2018—Conservación comunitaria de ecosistemas estratégicos. Retrieved August 18, 2020, from A Ciencia Cierta: https:// acienciacierta.minciencias.gov.co/index.php/concursos/eco-2018 MinCiencias. (2019). Protección de Ecosistemas Marino—Costeros del Municipio de Timbiquí, Cauca Mediante el Uso Sostenible de Residuos Sólidos Derivados de la Producción de Coco. Retrieved August 18, 2020, from A Ciencia Cierta: https://bit.ly/3h8i1bR MinCiencias. (2020). ¿De qué se trata? Retrieved July 9, 2020, from A Ciencia Cierta: https://acienciacierta.minciencias.gov.co/index.php/que-es-a-cienciacierta/que-es Montero, S., García, J., Arond, E., & Medina-Garzón, A. (2018). Desarrollo económico local, competitividad e innovación: Una mirada desde Colombia. Documentos de Política N°7. Universidad de los Andes. Mulgan, G., & Leadbeater, C. (2013). Systems innovation. Discussion Paper. Nesta. London. https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/systems_innovation_ discussion_paper.pdf OECD (2015). System Innovation: Synthesis Report. Paris. Ordóñez-Matamoros, G., Tadlaoui, S., Porras, S., Duarte, J., López, L., Martínez, L., & Calderón, G. (2013). Manual de Análisis y Diseño de Políticas Públicas. Universidad Externado de Colombia. Ordóñez-Matamoros, G., Centeno, J. P., Arond, E., Jaime, A., & Arias, K. (2018). La paz y los retos de la política de ciencia, tecnología e innovación en Colombia. In C. Soto I. (Ed.), Seguimiento y análisis de políticas públicas en Colombia – Anuario 2017 (pp. 137–168). Universidad Externado de Colombia. Oreg, S., Sverdlik, N., & Back, M. (2018). Translating dispositional resistance to change to the culture level: Developing a cultural framework of change orientations. European Journal of Personality, 32(4), 327–352. https://doi. org/10.1002/per.2152 Orozco, L. A., Villaveces, J. L., Ordoñez-Matamoros, G., & Moreno, G. (2019). Innovation policy and governance networks on national innovation systems. In G. Catalano, C. Daraio, M. Gregory, H. Moed & G. Ruocco (Eds.), 17th International Conference on Scientometrics & Informetrics, ISSI 2019—Proceedings (Vol 1, pp. 541–553). Sapienza University. Available at http://www.issi-society.org/publications/issi-conference-procee dings/proceedings-of-issi-2019/.

144

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

Ortiz Fernández, C. (2009). Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala, Clorinda Matto de Turner, Trinidad Henríquez y la teoría crítica–Sus legados a la teoría social contemporánea. Revista electrónica de la Universidad Ricardo Palma. Pacheco, D. F., York, J. G., Dean, T. J., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2010, July). The coevolution of institutional entrepreneurship: A tale of two theories. Journal of Management, 36(4), 974–1010. Pérez-Bustos, T., Sánchez-Aldana, E., & Chocontá-Piraquive, A. (2019). Textile material metaphors to describe feminist textile activisms: From threading yarn to knitting to weaving politics. TEXTILE, 17 (4), 368–377. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14759756.2019.1639417 Pérez, C. (2010). Revoluciones tecnológicas y paradigmas tecno-económicos. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 185–202. Peters, B. G. (2008). The Napoleonic tradition. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(2), 118–132. https://doi.org/10.1108/095135508 10855627 Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. The American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267. Pinzón-Camargo, & Ordóñez-Matamoros. (Forthcoming). A study of innovation policies and governance structures in emerging economies under the pathdependence framework. The case of Colombia. 1–34. Pinzón-Camargo, M. A., Ordoñez-Matamoros, G. H., & Kuhlmann, S. (2020). Towards a Path-Transformative Heuristic in Inclusive Innovation Initiatives. An illustrative case in rural communities in Colombia. Innovation and Development, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2020.1832029 Pinzón-Camargo, M. A., & Centeno, J. P. (In press). Políticas de innovación inclusiva y tensiones en torno a su implementación y evaluación en Colombia: el caso de ‘A Ciencia Cierta’. OPERA, 1–35. Rawls, J. (2012). Teoría de la justicia, Fondo de cultura económica. Rip, A. (2000). There’s no turn like the empirical turn. Research in Philosophy and Technology, 20, 3–18. Rip, A., & R. Kemp (1997). Technological change, Battelle Press. Rostow, W. W. (1959). The stages of economic growth. The Economic History Review 12(1). Robinson, D. K., & Mazzucato, M. (2019). The evolution of mission-oriented policies: Exploring changing market creating policies in the US and European space sector. Research Policy, 48(4), 936–948. Sábato, J. A. (1975). El pensamiento latinoamericano en la problemática cienciatecnología-desarrollo-dependencia, Paidós. Salazar, M., Lozano-Borda, M., & Lucio-Arias, D. (2014). Science, technology and innovation for inclusive development in Colombia: Pilot programmes

6

TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY …

145

developed by Colciencias. In G. Dutrénit, & J. Sutz (Eds.), National Innovation Systems, Social Inclusion and Development. The Latin American Experience (pp. 133–168). Edward Elgar Publishing. Santos, B. d. S. (2009). Una epistemología del sur: la reinvención del conocimiento y la emancipación social, Siglo XXI. Schot, J., & Geels, F. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 537–554. Schot, J., & Steinmueller, E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47 (9), 1554–1567. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Harvard University Press. Sen, A. (2014). Development as freedom (1999). Roberts, JT, Hite, AB & Chorev, N. The Globalization and Development Reader: Perspectives on Development and Global Change, 2, 525–547. Smith, A., Stirling, A., & Berkhout, F. (2005). The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Research Policy, 34(10), 1491–1510. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.07.005 Smith, A., Voß, J. P., & Grin, J. (2010). Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy, 39, 435–448. Smits, R., & Kuhlmann, S. (2004). The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1(2), 4–32. Steward, F. (2008). Breaking the boundaries. Transformative innovation for the global good. NESTA’s Provocations 07. National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA). Steward, F. (2012). Transformative innovation policy to meet the challenge of climate change: Sociotechnical networks aligned with consumption and enduse as new transition arenas for a low-carbon society or green economy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(4), 331–343. Swilling, M., Musango, J., & Wakeford, J. (2016). Developmental states and sustainability transitions: Prospects of a just transition in South Africa. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 18(5), 650–672. University of Sussex & COLCIENCIAS (2018). Orientaciones para la formulación de políticas regionales de innovación transformativa en Colombia. https://ocyt.org.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/orientaciones-formul acion-politicas-regionales-transformativas.pdf van Lente, H., Hekkert, M., Smits, R., & van Waveren, B. (2003). Roles of systemic intermediaries in transition processes. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7 (3), 247–279.

146

G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS ET AL.

Vara, A. M. (2004). Transgénicos en Argentina: Más allá del boom de la soja. Revista Iberoamericana De Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad-CTS, 1(3), 101– 129. Vara, A. M. (2007). Sí a la vida, no a las papeleras. En torno a una controversia ambiental inédita en América Latina. Redes, 12(25), 15–49. Villa, E., Cardona Valencia, D., Valencia-Arias, A., Hormechea, K., & García, J. (2020). Transformative Innovation Policy, SDGs, and the Colombian University. In G. Nhamo, V. Mjimba (Eds.) Sustainable Development Goals and Institutions of Higher Education. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer. Vinck, D. (2017). Learning thanks to innovation failure. In B. Godin, & D. Vinck (Eds), Critical Studies of Innovation. Alternative Approaches to the Pro-Innovation Bias. 221–231. Edward Elgar Publishing. Voß, J.-P., Smith, A., & Grin, J. (2009). Designing long-term policy: Rethinking transition management. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 275–302. Weber, M., & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change. Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research Policy, 41, 1037–1047. Woolthuis, R. K., Lankhuizen, M., & Gilsing, V. (2005). A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation, 25(6), 609–619.

CHAPTER 7

A Study of Innovation Policies and Governance Structures in Emerging Economies Under the Path-Dependence Framework. The Case of Colombia Mario A. Pinzón-Camargo and Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros

7.1

Introduction

The role assigned to Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) as sources of change (Godin, 2015) is on the top of the development policy discussions; mostly due to their proven effects on society, the economy and the environment. This discussion is a shared concern in emerging economies (Kuhlmann & Ordóñez-Matamoros, 2017a) and attracts the attention

M. A. Pinzón-Camargo (B) · G. Ordóñez-Matamoros Department of Science, Technology, and Policy Studies—STePS, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] G. Ordóñez-Matamoros e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Ordónez-Matamoros et al. (eds.), Policy and Governance of Science, Technology, and Innovation, Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80832-7_7

147

148

M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

about the relationship between innovation and development (Cozzens & Kaplinsky, 2009; Cozzens et al., 2007; Fagerberg & Srholec, 2009). In this framework, Arocena and Sutz identify two roles which STI play on development (2017).1 The first one is called ‘indirect approach to development’, whereby the centre of attention of STI is the firm, and the main goal is to increase productivity, efficiency and competitiveness. In this context, economic growth contributes to development by redistributing mechanisms like fiscal policies. The second one is named the ‘direct approach to development’, whereby STI policies aim to increase cooperation, participation, learning, among other capabilities in the communities (Bortagaray & Ordóñez-Matamoros, 2012). Based on these capabilities, communities will be able to attend their social needs and, and thus, increase their development. Some authors argue that the role assigned to innovation in Latin American countries contributes to innovation policy locked-in under an indirect approach, that is, on a narrow focus on economic growth. Three arguments support this claim. First, most of the Latin American countries have adopted the notion of National Innovation Systems to exclusively organise relationships between different stakeholders in the productive sector (Dutrénit & Sutz, 2014). In such systems, STI policies are seen as elements in charge of increasing productivity in the private sector to improve competitiveness, income and therefore, economic growth (Pansera & Owen, 2018; Rennkamp, 2011). Secondly, STI policies are oriented to the mainstream role of innovation for raising exports in these countries (Arocena & Sutz, 2017; Foster & Heeks, 2013; Smith et al., 2014) and in ‘catch-up’ models (Pansera & Owen, 2018; Smith et al., 2005), where this directionality, in some cases,

M. A. Pinzón-Camargo Departamento de Derecho Económico, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia G. Ordóñez-Matamoros Centro de Investigaciones y Proyectos Especiales—CIPE, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia 1 Others authors have made the same distinction using terms such as techno-nationalism vs. development and inclusion (Rennkamp, 2011) and market-centred vs social-centred (Pansera & Owen, 2018).

7

A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

149

has been reinforced by international and free trade agreements (Smith et al., 2005), among other development policies. Finally, there are private enterprises locked-in due to their reluctance to broaden their productive market towards non-traditional sectors. In this sense, Chataway et al. (2014), for example, conclude that companies in emerging economies do not want to address poor consumers’ needs mostly because of the reputational costs associated with producing lowcost goods; the regulatory requirements that increase the value of goods; the country institutional arrangements and their objectives; and finally, the level of local development. Despite the referred arguments, there are not enough analyses that provide systematic evidence whether exists or not a situation of lock-in of the role assigned to STI in emerging economies. In this vein, and to contribute to this discussion, this study assesses the extent to which the role assigned to STI policies in Colombia from 1990 to 2018 are in a lock-in situation. The reasons identified to choose this case will be pointed out in Sect. 7.3 below. This study has seven sections. The next section discusses the conceptual framework to analyse the research question mentioned above. In this framework, we use concepts from path-dependence theory, governance and innovation policies studies. Particularly, we ensemble a heuristic to answer the question of this study using the three stages model by Sydow et al. (2009), and the ideas by Pierson (2000) about the role of specific self-reinforcing mechanisms leading to lock-in. In Sect. 7.3, we justify our case selection and describe the data sources, and the qualitative approach followed in this study. Sections 7.4–7.6 follow the phases described in the heuristic ensembled in Sect. 7.2. Thus, Sect. 7.4 describes the preformation phase in a path-dependence process. It discusses the actors, actions and events which triggered the junctural situation and therefore unfold the developing of a specific path in the role assigned to STI policies in Colombia. Section 7.5 focuses on the use of innovation policies and governance structures as self-reinforcing mechanisms, and how those mechanisms lead to a lock-in situation. In Sect. 7.6, we assess the fulfilling of the requirement to claim the existence of a lock-in situation. Finally, in Sect. 7.7, we discuss the results identified in the previous sections and point out some opportunities for further research based on the challenges of governance and innovation policies in emerging economies.

150

M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

7.2 Path Dependence, Governance of Innovation and Innovation Policy The conceptual framework of this study relies upon three branches of development literature: the path-dependence theory, studies on governance of innovation and innovation policy research. Path-dependence theory will provide the frame to study the evolution of STI, hereafter innovation. The governance of innovation and the innovation policy literature contribute to explain the self-reinforcing mechanisms found in the process of path dependence and help to reflect on whether a lock-in situation has been established. In the following sections, we are going to discuss each of those branches, and we will explain the links between them to better position our research. The notion of path dependence has been studied from different perspectives (Martin & Sunley, 2006). Two examples could be mentioned. First, in the philosophy of science literature, a pathdependence situation could be explained considering the role of normal science reinforcing an accepted paradigm (Kuhn, 2012). Second, in the economic history of technology, David (2007) mentioned the relevance of this notion to study the process of change. This notion has two interpretations (Pierson, 2000). The first underlines the incidence of past decisions in the current situation of a social variable. In short, this interpretation claims that the past shapes the future (Dawley et al., 2010, p. 655). The second interpretation is more precise, framing a situation where once one decision is taken, the cost of changing the decisions flow is too high and difficult to reverse (Levi, 1997). According to Henning et al. (2013), this notion has two uses. On the one side, it explains how a chain of decisions comes up with a suboptimal outcome in the economy, and, on the other, it describes the direction of the changes. As for a path-dependence process, Sydow et al. (2009) identify three elements considered crucial. First, the critical juncture, defined as the time slot when one alternative is chosen among a large number of options. Second, increasing returns or self-reinforcing mechanisms: devices which increase substantially the cost of changing from one to other alternatives producing a lock-ineffect. This effect is the third crucial element and points out a situation reached by the work of the two first elements mentioned. According to Martin and Sunley (2006), it is possible to understand the lock-in effect in two phases. The first phase is a ‘positive’ period that induces the use of the self-reinforcing mechanisms, and

7

A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

151

the second one shows a negative cycle where the process becomes more inflexible and rigid, producing negative results. Thus, the lock-in effect could be described as a situation where a series of non-reversible actions have been taking place (Salerno, 2007) making not available other courses of action, and hence shaping an inefficient scenario (Sydow et al., 2009) with high opportunity costs. Critical junctures are best understood by looking at the role played by Institutional Entrepreneurs (IEs) (DiMaggio, 1988) who act as agents capable of intervening and altering the balances (Smith et al., 2005) in a situation by doing or not something (Garud et al., 2010) purposively. In this vein, a critical juncture could be understood as the result of actions developed by an actor, instead of a random event. According to DiMaggio (1988), IEs are organised actors with enough resources to promote and achieve a desired social result. Battilana et al. (2009) developed further this definition, suggesting that IEs promote divergent changes (those that break a current institutional setting) and take part in the process of institutional transformation. This definition can be used to explain how IEs use their skills and strategies (Fligstein, 1997) to build a critical juncture and foster a path-dependence process (Sydow et al., 2009). Besides, we suggest that IEs could contribute to explain the developing of the self-reinforcing mechanisms. In turn, self-reinforcing mechanisms describe actions or processes which have a positive feedback, as defined above.2 It means that the positive results reached from their use make them more appeal to be used again (Sydow et al., 2009). Those mechanisms can be used to study political (Pierson, 2000) and policy processes (Salerno, 2007). Pierson (2000) identifies four categories of self-reinforcing mechanisms in politics. Table 7.1 summarises those mechanisms. To sum up, path dependence, along with the concept of IEs and the four categories of self-reinforcing mechanisms, provides a promising framework to study the role assigned to innovation by innovation policies implemented in Colombia. However, it is necessary to introduce some concepts from governance and policy studies to strengthen this framework and thus, unfold the analysis of the role assigned to innovation by innovation policy and the governance of innovation between 1990 and 2018 2 Examples of those mechanisms are scale and scope economies, network externalities, complementary effects, coordination effects (Sydowet al., 2009), formal institutions, collective action mechanisms, political authority (Pierson, 2000) among others.

152

M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

Table 7.1 Four self-reinforcing mechanisms Mechanism

Description

The collective nature of politics

Public goods produce negative incentives, like free-riding (Pinzón-Camargo, 2015). These negative incentives justify State intervention to provide such goods to society. However, these actors face problems of collective action. Facilitating the conditions to boost collective action is a costly endeavour. Thus, the production of such conditions produces interdependences and organisational process with a high cost of change It explains the complex interdependences between actors and institutional arrangements designed to address social concerns. These interdependences produce learning, coordinate effects and adaptive expectations that increase the cost of change from one specific institutional arrangement to another (Pierson, 2000). Thus, once an institutional arrangement is lunched, and the actors learn how it works, they would prefer to continue using and improving it, instead of creating a new one if such arrangement is not working correctly It represents the interplays between actors and their relative power position in a governance structure. Actors with a better allocation of political authority set the rules over time to increase and keep their political relevance (Pierson, 2000). Setting these rules increases the cost and makes complex to develop or use alternative rules to address a social concern, and in turn, it increases the power allocation of the actors which produce them

The institutional density of politics

The political authority and power asymmetries

(continued)

in Colombia. In this vein, Sects. 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 examine how governance and innovation policies literature can contribute to understanding the strengthening a particular path.

7

A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

153

Table 7.1 (continued) Mechanism

Description

The complexity and opacity of politics

Politicians and policymakers face two challenges in their daily life, among others. They have to understand environments with high levels of complexity, and they have a short time to understand and make decisions about such environments. They overcome these challenges using models to simplify and understand their reality. These models are filters to process information based on their mental biases. The development of these biases demands highly starting-up cost and learning effects, which across time make them evolve in mental-maps (Pierson, 2000). Thus, it is difficult to modify a mental-map settled

Source Authors’ own elaboration based on Pierson (2000)

7.2.1

Governance of Innovation and the Self-Reinforcing Mechanisms

Understanding the governance of innovation contributes to understanding three of the self-reinforcing mechanisms listed in Table 7.1. First, it helps to explain the institutional density of politics. In this vein, the governance of innovation is a heuristic (Kuhlmann, 2007) which unfolds interactions (Borrás, 2009; Bovaird, 2005), processes (Kuhlmann, 2001; Laranja, 2012), debates and negotiations (Kuhlmann, 2007), taking place in an arena composed by the State, private entities (Laranja, 2012; Palmberg & Lemola, 2012; Smith et al., 2005) and the society (Borrás, 2009). Among several dimensions (Palmberg & Lemola, 2012, p. 469), different authors underline the governance capacity to provide conditions for coordination (Borrás, 2009; Bovaird, 2005; Jessop, 2007; Palmberg & Lemola, 2012). These conditions emerge as a consequence of several processes studied by Kuhlmann (2001) and Laranja (2012). Achieving and developing those features of the governance of innovation require investments and interdependences between actors to steer social concerns around innovation. The settling process of the governance of innovation and its work after its institutionalisation produces the effects explained by the institutional density of politics.

154

M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

Second, the governance of innovation depends on the political authority and power asymmetries . In this mechanism, actors in leading positions inside the governance of innovation can define the directionality of the role assigned to innovation through innovation policies. The dance metaphor is useful to understand this self-reinforcing role of the governance of innovation. This metaphor has been used by several scholars (Rip, 1992; Kuhlmann et al., 2010; Kuhlmann & OrdóñezMatamoros, 2017b) to study the interplays between actors (dancers). This dance evolves in three stages (Rip, 1992). The first is the beginning of the dance, which emerges according to ‘(…) particular historical circumstances and made possible by particular “cognitive infrastructures”’ (1992, p. 232). The second is the dance-engagement, where the actors, based on the expected value of the dance, identify incentives to continue or not their performance. Finally, there is the stage where the dancers decide if they want to change, transform and we add, finish the dance. The dynamics of those interplays is captured by Kuhlmann et al. (2010) when they explain the existence of an Innovation Policy Dance. The dance described by these authors helps to unfold the interplays between ‘(…) innovation practice (I), innovation related to public intervention strategies (P) and innovation research and theory (T)’ (2010, p. 7). Third, the governance of innovation could help to depict the complexity and opacity of politics . In this case, two aspects should be considered. On the one hand, the notion of governance provides three tools to address complex situations (Jessop, 1999). The first is the ‘noise reduction’ when governance brings channels to find mutual understandings between actors. The second is the ‘negative coordination’ in the sense of introducing the need for the actors to consider possible adverse outcomes based on their decisions. The third is the ‘positive coordination’ as the result of consensus around visions allowing to carry on actions to pursue particular objectives. On the other hand, the learning process is crucial in the governance of innovation (Kuhlmann, 2007). This process is classified as a first or second order. Whereas first-order learning focusses on improving particular path without considering any change, in a second-order process, new understandings, objectives, actors and interplays could appear (Kuhlmann et al., 2010; Rip, 1992). The tools to address complex situations set the institutional logic (Leca & Naccache, 2006) or the mental-maps that give the directionality of the interplays between the actors under a first-order learning process.

7

7.2.2

A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

155

Innovation Policies and the Self-Reinforcing Mechanisms

Innovation policies could represent two roles according to the selfreinforcing mechanisms. The first one is according to the collective nature of politics. Three aspects help to understand the link between this self-reinforcing mechanism and innovation policies. First, the definition of policies3 as actions implemented under a governmental framework to address a social concern (Ordóñez-Matamoros, et al., 2013). Second, their capability to canalise tensions, agreements and relationships among actors and institutions (Dawley et al., 2015; Martin & Sunley, 2006; Mazzucato, 2013). Third, the aim of innovation policies to ‘(…) strengthen the competitiveness of an economy or selected sectors, in order to increase societal welfare through economic success’ (Kuhlmann, 2001, p. 945). These elements allow understanding innovation policies as drivers to foster the production of knowledge to increase competitiveness, according to the governance of innovation’s decisions. This understanding of the innovation policies set them under an indirect approach to development. The second role is developed under the complexity and opacity of politics. In this case, the ‘successive limited comparisons’ model by Lindblom (1959), among a variety of methods (Cf. Ordóñez-Matamoros et al., (2013)), allows understanding the policymaking process as the consequence of the appropriation of mental-maps by policymakers. In detail, this method explains the changes promoted by the State as the result of a series of small decisions done by policymakers. Those actors make their choices regarding their previous elections, experiences and the likelihood to predict possible outcomes derivated by those decisions. Besides, the decision-making process is the outcome of the interplays and negotiations of those actors with other stakeholders (dancers). In this point, it could be added that those interactions happen under the governance of innovation with an institutional logic that supports the innovation policies.

3 We consider this definition as comprehensive of the notion of policies. However, we are aware of the diversity of meanings that this concept has (Cf. (Salazar Vargas, 1995; Roth Deubel, 2010).

156

M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

7.2.3

A Heuristic of a Path Dependence in the Role Assigned to Innovation

The elements discussed in Sects. 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 are used in Fig. 7.1 to describe a process of three phases following the model developed by Sydow et al. (2009). This model was designed to explain the formation of an organisational path. However, we consider this model as suitable to unfold the path-dependence process in the role assigned to innovation. We include IEs as agents who trigger and push the evolution of the process as further development in this model. This inclusion also tries to provide an alternative to overcome some of the path dependence’s critics (Martin & Sunley, 2006; Martin, 2010; Dawleyet al., 2010; Cooke, 2012). In Fig. 7.1, the first phase in a path-dependence process is the pre-formation phase. It describes the existence of a large number of

Fig. 7.1 Phases in a path-dependence process (Source Based on Sydowet al. (2009))

7

A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

157

alternatives available4 to attend a social phenomenon. In this phase, IEs begin to imagine new paths to overcome a social concern. They use their skills, strategies and current events to build empathy and legitimacy among other actors (Fligstein, 1997). Therefore, they reframe or create new institutions to support their objectives (Tracey et al., 2011). These actions will trigger the critical juncture initiating a path-dependence process. The second phase is the formation phase. In this, a small number of alternatives remain, and one of them becomes more appeal. It is because the IEs’ strategies begin to generate increasing returns towards the desired one. In Fig. 7.1, governance and innovation policies are illustrating their use as ‘self-reinforcing mechanisms’ by the IEs. The third phase shapes the emergence and consolidation of a lock-in situation, which is a consequence of the use of self-reinforcing mechanisms by IEs. According to Sect. 7.2, two sub-phases shape this phase. Thus, whereas the letter ‘(a)’ depicts a ‘positive’ period of using the self-reinforcing mechanisms, the letter ‘(b)’ illustrates the negative cycle of the lockin situation. Regarding the aim of this study, the following section will describe the data sources consulted, and the approach followed, and the Sections 7.4–7.6 will present the results of the data analysis.

7.3

Research Approach: Why Colombia?

To answer the question posed in this research, Colombia was selected as a case of study. The current high levels of poverty and inequality (The World Bank, 2018), low levels of economic productivity (Matallana, 2017) and its challenges in terms of peace make this country an interesting example to analyse the role assigned to innovation under the path-dependence framework. Indeed, Colombia has been portrayed as a country where innovation policies and governance are facing major challenges in terms of their contribution and legitimacy in the framework of the peace agreement signed with one of the oldest guerrillas’ groups in the world (Ordóñez-Matamoros et al., 2018). In this respect, Colombia can be classified as an emerging economy where rapid advances in Science, Technology and Innovation system are taking place, while political and social struggles happen at the same time. For these reasons, the reflection as to whether a new generation of innovation policies 4 These authors acknowledge that these broad number of alternatives are somehow influenced by the past (Cf. Sydowet al. (2011, p. 4).

158

M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

are viable and/or desirable; which makes these reflections relevant to the current Colombian situation. We aim at contributing to Innovation Policy and Governance Studies involving developing countries where rapid socio-economic and political changes take place. We claim that by better understanding of the Colombian case, some lessons can be learnt not only concerning the situations in emerging economies but also for to the changing situations in the so-called stable economies. We think that ‘stability’ is an exceptional situation nowadays in the world. We did a full reading of 53 white papers5 published in the period 1990–2018 by the National Government in the fields of innovation and competitiveness. Twelve of them were excluded because their objectives and policy strategies did not have a direct relationship with the objective of this study. Policies in the field of competitiveness were included because, in Colombia, they are commonly used to present innovation policies’ strategies. Chapters and sections of the eight National Development Plans and the most relevant legal documents (Laws, Decrees and Resolutions) in the same fields were consulted. Besides, secondary information like newspapers and analysis of these policies was considered for contextual and analytical purposes. The analysis span was defined considering the methodology followed by Sydow et al. (2011), and the relevance attention of path dependence on the time dimension of the processes (Salerno, 2007) as a medium to understand ‘how socioeconomic systems change’ (Martin, 2010, p. 2). However, it does not mean a detailed recapitulation of all the single events in this period of time.6 Instead of that, it means to point out the relevant features according to the heuristic ensembled in the last section. Based on a qualitative approach, the revision of the documents mentioned above followed two steps. First, the documents were classified in a spreadsheet according to their alignment with the direct and indirect approaches to development. To this end, their objectives, strategies and policy actions were studied following the definitions of those approaches to development. Second, the results of the previous step were 5 In Colombia, the white papers are called CONPES documents. In those documents, the National Government defines long-term policies for different areas. Their main feature is their commitment to improve the level of coordination between national, and in some cases, regional entities around common strategies. 6 An insightful recapitulation of the Institutional Changes of the Colombian STI’s system could be found in Salazar (2013).

7

A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

159

classified again, but considering their contribution to the self-reinforcing mechanisms discussed in Sects. 7.2.1 and 7.2.2. The contribution of each document was examined also considering the definition of path dependence given by Levy (1997), and the path-dependence stages described by Sydow et al. (2009). The documents pointed out in the last paragraph were used to gain a better understanding of the events that took place in each of the path-dependence stages. Following the methodologies used by Rossiter and Smith (2017) and Edquist (2018), the analysis presented in this article will consider the personal experience of the authors as practitioners in different entities in the National Government of Colombia as a source of reflection and reinterpretation of the context, which also will be supported by the conceptual framework in Sect. 7.2. Thus, in this paper, we are not claiming particular objectivity (Rossiter & Smith, 2017). The findings identified following the approach described here will be presented according to the three phases of a path-dependence process illustrated in Fig. 7.1. Thus, the critical juncture in the pre-formation phase is the focus in Sect. 7.4, and part five will examine the formation phase and the role played by the governance of innovation and innovation policies as self-reinforcing mechanisms. Finally, Sect. 7.6 will be focused on the lock-in situation. Part seven will open a discussion regarding the results of the previous ones.

7.4 Building the Juncture Phenomena: The Role of the Institutional Entrepreneurs in the Political Constitution of 1991 and the Economic Liberalisation Process In Colombia, the juncture events which lead to assign a particular role to innovation were built by a sum of actions launched by collective and individual IEs. IEs sought to change the institutional framework to overcome an extensive period of intense violence and engaged the country in the process of modernisation (Carrillo Flórez, 2016). Two relevant IEs were identified. The first IE was the student movement. This movement implemented symbolic actions and public performances as strategies to gain empathy, legitimacy and support by the Colombian society. Among other actions, the ‘march of the silence’ (Castro Caicedo, 1989; El Tiempo, 1990)

160

M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

and ‘the seventh ballot’ produced enough support among the Colombian population to enact and sustain the vision of change developed by these IEs. This support was evident in the 1.35 million people (Lemaitre Ripoll, 2016) who vote in favour of the idea of a constitutional change promoted by the IEs. These votes became in a symbol for calling a Constitutional Assembly (García, 2008). Based on these results, the outgoing President ordered the inclusion of a ballot in the presidential elections of May of 1990, asking if people wanted or not a Constitutional Assembly. As a result, circa 5.3 million people voted favourable and less than the 5% voted against (Alarcón, 2015). The results of the strategies implemented by the student movement fostered a constitutional reform which introduced a new set of rules for Colombian society. The second IE was the President in the period 1990–1994. He supported his actions in the constitutional reform achieved in 1991. As the main feature of the new constitution settlement, the country became a social rule of law without defining a particular economic model as a norm (Correa Henao, 2008). This feature set a situation where the State was called to develop institutional arrangements and policy strategies to address the challenges of an open market, without disregarding the population’s welfare. In this frame, the President began to find social support, particularly from entrepreneurs, around his intention to speed up processes of modernisation and economic growth as a path to increase development. Among other strategies, the President settled down public– private arenas of debate about the strategies, decisions and challenges to implementing the liberalisation process, where industrial, academia and labour sectors were called to participate. To frame his discourse, he fostered diagnoses about the challenges and benefits regarding industrial competitiveness. To this end, he used technical documents, like the CONPES 2652 of 1993, and hired studies by international consultants, such as the firm Monitor Group. Based on those diagnoses, he presented the economic liberalisation’s process as a source of multiple advantages for Colombia and as a way to improve the country’s reputation. An example of this process of framing the advantages of the economic liberalisation, it will find the following in the CONPES 2494 of 1990: Since the beginning of this administration, the National Government has proposed a vigorous program of economic modernisation in the frame of the Social Economic Plan. It has the purpose of overcoming the structural barriers to economic growth and create the conditions required to improve

7

A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

161

the employment and income circumstances and raise the welfare levels of the population.7

To summarise, both IEs shared the vision to overcome the violence period in the country and began a process of modernisation. Thus, whereas the student movement fostered a constitutional reform of the country, the President introduced a new economic directionality based on such reform. Both of those visions are divergent changes, and also the actors were part of the implementation of such changes. The before elements allow to claim them as IEs regarding the definition of IEs discussed in Sect. 7.2. The actions performed by these IEs built the critical juncture to introduce depth transformations in the Colombian society. This critical juncture worked as a window of opportunity for STI’s actors. Those actors were working since the 1980s to set STI as a national priority, and among others of their advances, they enacted the first law of Science and Technology (ST) of Colombia (Law 29/1990) (Lucio-Arias et al., 2013). These elements settled the conditions and alternatives for the role assigned to innovation in the period 1990–2018. The following section will study those conditions and alternatives considering the role of governance and innovation policies as self-reinforcing mechanisms.

The Formation Phase: Innovation and Competitiveness Policies and Their Governance Structures as Self-Reinforcing Mechanisms

7.5

In the Colombian’s case, innovation and competitiveness policies along with their governance structures contribute to understanding the role assigned to innovation. In this section, more than an in-depth study of one of the four self-reinforcing mechanisms described in Table 7.1, it will study how these policies and governance structures in the period of the analysis showed features according to this table. The following sections

7 Free translation: ‘Desde comienzos de la presente administración, el Gobierno Nacional planteó en el Plan de Economía Social un vigoroso programa de modernización de la economía, con el fin de superar los obstáculos estructurales al crecimiento económico y crear las condiciones requeridas para mejorar las condiciones de empleo e ingreso y elevar los niveles de bienestar de la población’ (DNP, 1990).

162

M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

will discuss those features and their contribution to the role assigned to innovation in Colombia. 7.5.1

The Collective Nature of the Politics: Knowledge as Input for Productivity in Policies

The economic liberalisation process led by the President from 1990 to 1994 prompted to consider innovation as fundamental to increase the level of productivity and competitiveness in the country. It was evident, for example, in the policy of Science and Technology of 1991 (CONPES 2540): The common thread of the new policy in this area must lead to an improvement in productivity, quality, management and competitiveness in all economic activities. It will operate on two fundamental fronts: the generalized support for the processes of technological modernisation and creative innovation in all sectors of the economy, and the strengthening of the country’s scientific capacity, particularly in strategic areas that allow development in the medium and long term of new technologies.8

Thus, innovation policies were understood as drivers for knowledge and technological development production according to the needs from productive sectors. Besides, they were considered as an asset to advance in the modernisation process and harness the benefits from free trade and access to international markets (DNP, 1991c). This conception of innovation policies did not show significant changes through the period of analysis, and they followed an incremental pattern in terms of the policydesign. The main discussions and changes were about the role assigned to innovation as transversal or sectoral policies which could be identified in the National Development Plans of each period.9

8 Free translation: ‘El hilo conductor de la nueva política en esta área ha de llevar al mejoramiento en la productividad, la calidad, la gestión y la competitividad en todas las actividades económicas. Operará en dos frentes fundamentales: el apoyo generalizado a los procesos de modernización tecnológica e innovación creativa en todos los sectores de la economía, y el fortalecimiento de la capacidad científica del país, particularmente en áreas estratégicas que permitan en el mediano y largo plazo el desarrollo de nuevas tecnologías’ (DNP, 1991b). 9 Transversal policies could be defined as those policies seeking to implement instruments to benefit a broad group of agents. Sectorial policies are those policies trying to

7

A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

163

This understanding of innovation policies guided the development of policy tools to incentive knowledge production. In this vein, circa 73% of the 41 white papers consulted included strategies towards encouraging the production of knowledge according to the productive sectors’ priorities. These tools can classify into four groups. The first one is set by actions to improve intellectual property rules as a medium to correct market failure (i.e. CONPES 2540 (DNP, 1991b); 3484 (DNP, 2007a); 3866 (DNP, 2016)). The second is actions to foster the knowledge production through financial instruments such as credit lines or taxes benefits to support the technological upgrading of the productive sector (i.e. CONPES 2510 (DNP, 1991a); 2762 (DNP, 1995a); 3080 (DNP, 2000); 3280 (DNP, 2004); (DNP, 2015a)). The third set is shaped by non-financial instruments such as public calls like those defined in the CONPES 3484 (DNP, 2007a) or 3527 (DNP, 2008a). Finally, there are actions to align processes of human capital training, both at technical as higher education according to the priorities of the productive sectors (i.e. CONPES 2762 (DNP, 1995a); 3439 (DNP, 2006); 3582 (DNP, 2009)). The allocation of resources to make possible the use of the policy tools to foster knowledge production was a concern along the period of analysis. It was evident in the CONPES 2540 (DNP, 1991b), 2739 (DNP, 1994a), 3080 (DNP, 2000) and 3582 (DNP, 2009), among others. Hence, and despite the low level of investment in STI activities as a proportion of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the governments have tried to increase the number of innovation’s resources. Figure 7.2 depicts the evolution of this variable from 2000 to 2018. It shows positive changes in the pattern of investments in innovation activities. This situation was reinforced by the transformation of the institutional framework to manage the Colombian’s royalties schema10 in 2011. In 2011, a constitutional amendment assigned 10% of the national

identify beneficiaries. The former category is better known in the industrial policies as ‘picking winners’. The innovation policies in the periods 1990–1994, 1998–2002, 2002– 2006 and 2014–2018 could be classified as transversal policies, and those of the periods 1994–1998, 2006–2010 and 2010–2014 as sectorial policies. 10 For more information about this royalties’ schema, we recommend checking the official web page of the Colombian National System of Royalties: https://www.sgr.gov. co/Qui%C3%A9nesSomos/SobreelSGR.aspx.

164

M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

1

0.75

0.8 0.6

0.38

0.41

0.43

0.39

0 2000

2002

2004

2006

0.4

0.63

0.55

0.51

2008

2010

0.69

0.68

2016

2018

0.2 2012

2014

Fig. 7.2 Investment in STI’s activities as a percentage of Colombia’s GDP (Source OCyT (2017))

royalties11 to set down mechanism to incentive knowledge production under the conception mentioned in this section. Royalties’ contribution to the STI’s activities represented 5% of the National Investment in the period 2012–2018 (DNP, 2018c). 7.5.2

The Institutional Density of Politics: STIand the Increasing Scope of the Competitiveness’ Governance

The four categories of policy tools mentioned in the last section required governance structures to bridge relationships and improve coordination between public and private actors. The Circa 43% of the studied white papers entailed actions towards set institutional arrangements (i.e. CONPES 2540 (DNP,1991b), 2739 (DNP, 1994a), 2762 (DNP, 1995a), 3280 (DNP, 2004), 3527 (DNP, 2008a), 3934 (DNP, 2018b)). Laws, Decrees and Legal resolutions complemented these actions, which were channels to develop those arrangements. Governance structures were opened in two areas. The first one focused on innovation and the second one on competitiveness. The first governance structure was settled under the name of the National System of Science and Technology (NSST). It was established in 1990 by the Law 29 and the Decree 1767, and the Decree 585 of 1991. This system was designed to increase collaboration between

11 According to official sources, the financial resources assigned to STI by this fund contribute to foster 360 projects in the period 2012–2018, with a sum equals to COP $2,780 billion (DNP, 2018a, p. 327).

7

A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

165

government, academicals and industrial sectors. However, those regulations did not define the objective of this collaboration. This lack of clarity was convenient for the government and enterprises representatives. They determined the directionality of innovation policies towards incentive productivity and competitiveness. The NSST remained in a first-order learning process in the period of analysis. Actors were focused on improving the rules of the dance defined in the competences of NSST’s council board and learning the rhythm of the dance (innovation to increase productivity). The directionality introduced by those actors in the NSST was enacted by the Law 1286 of 2009. This Law changed the name of the NSST and signalled explicitly that the first objective of the National System of Science Technology and Innovation (NSSTI)12 was to increase the use and production of STI knowledge to achieve higher levels of economic growth. Thus, it could be possible to improve the quality level of the population lives. The development of the second governance structure began in 1991 with the Committee of liberalisation. The institutionalisation of this Committee was in 1994 under the figure of the National Council of Competitiveness. It has the aim to connect and coordinate relationships between the government, the industry, the academicals and the labour sectors. This institutional arrangement had a clear objective from its beginning. It was to advise the President to improve quality, productivity and competitiveness in the country and their regions. The improvement of these elements was considered as the path to speed up economic development and therefore achieve a better quality of life for all the population (Decree 2010 of 1994). The focus on increasing competitiveness and productivity has been stable in this institutional arrangement in the period of analysis, despite some changes in its configuration, functions

12 Innovation as a component was included by the Law 1286 of 2009.

166

M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

and names13 before 2015. As the governance of innovation, the governance of competitiveness shows an incremental evolution according to Lindblom’s model (1959) under a first-order learning process. The governance of competitiveness defined the role assigned to innovation because of the absence of clear objectives for the governance of innovation. It was done through a process of increasing the scope of the competencies and responsibilities assigned to the former governance structure. The article 1 in the Law of Competitiveness (Law 1253 of 2008) and the Decree 1500 of 2012 are examples of the expansion of the governance of competitiveness into the governance of innovation. In the second example, innovation was included as a field to be managed directly by the governance of competitiveness through the National Administrative System of Competitiveness and Innovation (NASCI). The scope expansion of the governance of competitiveness produced overlapping and tensions between the actors. These situations, besides the incidence of the governance of competitiveness in the role assigned to innovation, affected the coordination capabilities in both governance structures. Along the period of analysis, these problems were acknowledged in white papers (i.e. CONPES 2739 (1994a), 3439 (2006), 3638 (2010); 3866 (2016)). As an alternative to solve these difficulties, the National Government ordered to merge both governance structures in 2015. The National Development Plan’s Law (Law 1753 of 2015) from the period 2014–2018 did this action and settled the National System of Competitiveness, Science, Technology and Innovation (NSCSTI). The NSCSTI has been developing according to the structure defined by the Decree 1500 of 2012. It has meant the reinforcement of the role assigned to innovation as a source to increase competitiveness. This exercise did not finish due to the organisational tensions between the actors that belong to each structure. In 2018, the High Presidential Counsellor for

13 In this vein, along with quality, productivity and competitiveness, in 1998, the need to increase the exports development of the country was included in this governance structure. The National Council of Competitiveness was merged with the Superior Commission of Foreign Trade settling the Mixed Commission of Foreign Trade (Decree 2222 of 1998). In 2006, the range of action was reduced only to the competitiveness and the National System of Competitiveness (Decree 2828 of 2006) was settled down. Finally, in 2012, the system was increased again covering also innovation and productivity, the name given to that system was National Administrative System of Competitiveness and Innovation (Decree 1595 of 2012).

7

A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

167

the Private Sector and Competitiveness,14 with the support of the public and private entities,15 tried to start up the new system in a de facto governance of competitiveness, Science, Technology and Innovation. Currently, the National Development Plan for the Period 2018–2022 (DNP, 2018d) fostered an articulation process between different systems. In this line, the Decree 1651 of 2019 was enacted to guide such process of articulation. Despite that some experts point out the absence of an explicit order to merge the systems, it is possible to realise how the process of articulation of them was oriented towards improving the competitiveness conditions of the country. Thus, this Decree reinforced the role assigned to innovation by the subordination of the NSST to the National System of Competitiveness and Innovation (NSCI) created by the Law 1955 of 2019. 7.5.3

Political Authority and Power Asymmetries: Unbalanced Arenas and the Arising of the Industrial Sector

This self-reinforcing mechanism could be studied regarding the two main spaces of governance coordination both in innovation and in competitiveness structures. The first space is the advisory boards. The composition analysis of these boards contributes to identifying the level of actors’ representativeness in each governance structure. Thus, whereas the government, academic and industrial sectors were part of both structures, only the governance of competitiveness considered the labour sector. Similarly, representatives from the local realms were considered since the 1990s by the governance of innovation, while they only were included in the governance of competitiveness since 2006. Both governance structures showed a clear bias towards government participation. In the

14 This administrative figure was created in the early 2000s. The name of this Counsellor evolved along the time from the High Presidential Counselling for Public and Private Management in 2010 (Decree 3445), to Minister Counsellor for the Government and the Private Sector in 2014 (Decree 1649), and to High Presidential Counselling for the Private Sector and Competitiveness in 2017 (Decree 672 of 2017). 15 The public entities that have supported this process are the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Tourism, The National Planning Department. Regarding the private sector, the support has come from those that belong to the executive committee and the National Business Association of Colombia (ANDI, by its acronym in Spanish).

168

M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

governance of innovation, the academia shared relevant representativeness than the industrial sector, and in the governance of competitiveness, it is on the other way around. The second space of analysis is the directive councils. In the case of the governance of innovation, these councils are the core of the NSSTI (Salazar, 2013), and they currently cover ten thematic areas.16 However, some experts disagree with the previous affirmation and consider that these councils are only advisory bodies at the sectoral level. Along the period of study, they lost their role as policy authority and decisionmaker.17 However, they recovered their importance to steer policy decisions again in 2015.18 In terms of actors’ composition, these councils are primarily biased towards academia. According to the Legal Resolutions, 068 and 81 of 2015 published by COLCIENCIAS, circa 55% of their representatives belong to academia, 24.8% to the government and 20.2% to the industry. In the case of the governance of competitiveness, the Executive Committee of the NASCI represented the directive council. This Committee was introduced in 2007 by the Decree 61 of 2007 under the name of Mixed Technical Secretariat. This Committee received the centrality when it was in charge of coordinating and steering the NASCI in 2012 by the Decree 1500. This Committee showed high participation of representatives from the industrial sector, whereas the Labour, Academia and Regions did not have enough representativeness. An attempt to solve this bias, it was included the Director of COLCIENCIAS and the Executive President of the Colombian Federation of the Chambers of Commerce. Besides the last actors, this council is comprised nowadays by the National Planning Department, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Tourism, the High Councillor for the Public and 16 According to Decrees 585 of 1991 and 2926 of 1991, in the early 1990s the councils were: The Basic Sciences Program, The Social and Human Sciences Program, The Industrial Technological Development and Quality Program, The Agricultural Science and Technology Program, The Environment and Habitat Sciences Program, The Program of Scientific Studies of Education, The Health Science and Technology Program, Electronics, Telecommunications and Computers, Science and Technology of the Sea, Research in Energy and Mining, Biotechnology. 17 The changes in the Councils were introduced by the Decrees 585 of 1991, 2934 of 1994, 2610 of 2010 and the Resolution 68 of 2015. 18 According to the Resolution 61, the main functions of these councils were the definition of the policy guidelines for the program development; designing and developing

7

A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

169

Private Management, and the President of Private Council of Competitiveness.19 Recently, Decree 1651 of 2019 included the ministries of Labour, Education, Agriculture and Rural Development, Information and Communication Technologies and representatives from the regional competitiveness and innovation commissions. The actor’s representativeness in both directive councils unveils the same bias than the advisory boards. These biases could explain the lack of interest from the private sector to participate in the governance of innovation (COLCIENCIAS, 2008) and the increasing participation of this sector in the governance of competitiveness. The last phenomenon could be understood as a strategy of the private sector to strengthen their vision of the role of innovation. This strategy has been consequent with the intention of the National Government to put the private sector as the centre of the economic liberalisation process that began in the early 1990s. Actions such as the launching of the National Commission of Competitiveness in 2006, the enactment of the National Development Plans in the periods between 2010 and 2018 (DNP, 2011; DNP, 2015b) and the CONPES 3866 (DNP, 2016) have reinforced this governmental intention. In the same line, some international organisations even have suggested that in the innovation’s system, the enterprise must be the centre of the actions (OCDE, 2013). The analysis of the actors involved in the governances of innovation and competitiveness, along with the evolution of their main spaces of coordination, depicts the industrial sector’s power allocation. This situation has been the result of an incremental process of rules modification in the governance structures, which also has allowed to define the role assigned to innovation according to the industrial sector’s interests. Some facts, like the followings, have reinforced this power allocation. First, the inclusion of innovation as a topic to be coordinated by the NASCI in the Decree 1500 of 2012. Second, the merging of the governance structures of innovation and competitiveness by the Law of the National Development Plan from 2014 to 2018. Third, the failure in the approbation

strategies and projects according to the guidelines defined; defining criteria for financial distribution among programs and projects; encouraging the coordination among the actors that belong to the program and promoting the institutional development of the STI. 19 It is a non-profit organisation sponsored by private companies and universities. This council works as a think-thank focusing on competitiveness and is in charge of articulating dialogues between the public, private, academic and other sectors.

170

M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

of an Innovation CONPES in 2016 (Wasserman, 2017) and the incorporation of some of its strategies and actions in the CONPES 3866 of productive development (Prieto et al., 2018). Fourth, the assignation of the role of formulation, orientation, coordination and implementation of the innovation policy to the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Tourism in the CONPES 3866 (2016). Finally, the subordination of the NSSTI to the NSCI by the Decree 1651 of 2019. 7.5.4

The Complexity and Opacity of Politics: Innovation for Economic Productivity

The start-up cost of the process of economic liberalisation in Colombia linked policy tools, public investments and the governance structures of innovation with an indirect approach to development. In this vein, the role assigned to innovation was associated with two objectives in the period of study. The first objective was to support the industrial modernisation in the economic liberalisation process in the 1990s. The second one was to bring access to benefits from the free trade agreements to the country by the sophistication of the export basket and to increase the industrial productivity in the 2000s (DNP, 2007b). In the latter, the main trigger of this purpose was the free trade agreement with the United States (DNP, 2004). This understanding of the role assigned to innovation was found in circa 88% of the CONPES consulted (i.e. CONPES 2510 (DNP, 1991a), 2652 (DNP, 1993), 2724 (DNP, 1994b), 2848 (DNP, 1996), 3179 (DNP, 2002), 3360 (DNP, 2005), 3533 (DNP, 2008b), (DNP, 2016)). This interpretation has been reinforced in all the National Development Plans from 1990 to 2018, including the current development plan. This study found some attempts (see Table 7.2) to give different roles to innovation under a direct approach to development. However, those attempts have not gone further from a discursive statement. For example, it was the case of the CONPES of social innovation. This CONPES was cancelled despite a long and participative work of various social actors from different regions (Villa López & Melo Velásco, 2017). As a consequence, the strategy of social innovation was put out of the governances of innovation and competitiveness’ agendas. Three arguments support the claim that alternative roles assigned to innovation have remained on a discursive level. First, in comparison with the strategies and policy actions designed to use innovation as a trigger of industrial productivity,

7

A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

171

Table 7.2 Different attempts of giving different roles to STI in the National Development Plans Role given to innovation

Presidential period(s)

Public innovation

1994–1998 2014–2018 2018–2022

Social innovation

1998–2002 2010–2014 2014–2018 2018–2022

Social transformation

2002–2006

Description The STI’s purpose is to improve the delivery of social services (DNP, 1995b), looking through new alternatives to produce public value for all the citizens (DNP, 2018d) The STI’s contribution to the society is based on its capability of support ‘(…) designing and implementing ideas and projects to solve social, cultural, economic or environmental problems’ (DNP, 2011, p. 226) The role assigned to STI is to foster knowledge production to promote social development and upgrading of social and political institutions and the enterprise system, in fields such as critical social problems like poverty (DNP, 2007b, p. 244)

Source Authors’ own based on the National Development Plans of the periods pointed out

these attempts did not show precise mechanisms to operationalise such roles. Second, the resources assigned to these attempts are marginal. For instance, in the period 2010–2018, whereas COLCIENCIAS allocated in average 9.87% of its budget to foster the role of innovation as a trigger of industrial productivity, less than 2% was appointed to alternative roles of innovation (COLCIENCIAS, 2019). Finally, as a consequence of the lack of mechanisms and resources to operationalise the alternative roles for innovation, they have produced incipient impacts (Salazar et al., 2013). The before elements show a predominant mental-map to understand the role that innovation has performed in Colombia. The name of this mental-map could be innovation for economic productivity, and it is featured by its aligning with an indirect approach to development. This mental-map has been identified both in the governance of innovation

172

M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

and in the competitiveness one, also in the policies, national development plans and relevant regulations (i.e. Law 1253 of 2008, Law 1286 of 2009, Decree 1500 of 2012). To sum up this section, the study carried out of the governance and innovation policies as self-reinforcing mechanisms contributes to understanding the actions that took place in the formation phaseof a path-dependence process. The role of these self-reinforcing mechanisms is described in Table 7.3. Based on those actions and the results of the use of these mechanisms by IEs, it will be possible going to asses if the role assigned to innovation is in a lock-in situation. It will be the purpose of the following section.

7.6

The Lock-In Situation: A Consolidated Phase

Three conditions should be met to confirm if a situation is locked-in (see Sect. 7.2). In the first place, if a series of non-reversible actions were implemented and secondly, if a consequence of the non-reversible actions, feasible alternatives were dismissed. Finally, if a suboptimal outcome was achieved because of the two previous conditions. The assessment of the first condition shows several non-reversible actions implemented in the period of study. Section 7.5 studied these actions. Common features of these actions were their alignment with the indirect approach to development, according to the traditional innovation policies’ definition, an evolution under first-order learning following the Lindblom’s model. From the viewpoint of the self-reinforcing mechanism studied, all of them were salient in their objective to reinforce the role assigned to innovation as a driver to foster productivity, competitiveness and economic growth. The second condition to claim a lock-in situation was also fulfilled in this case. Across the period of analysis, the documents studied showed a clear process of enforcement in both policies and governance of innovation structures to pursue the process of modernisation and access to global markets. Despite the attempt to emerge alternative roles to innovation, they have been left aside (see Sect. 7.5.4). Finally, a general overview of two objectives pursued by the role assigned to innovation leads to consider the emergence of a suboptimal outcome. The first objective was to increase the productivity of the industrial sector. In this case, Colombia showed 50% of the times between 1990

7

A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

173

Table 7.3 Four self-reinforcing mechanisms in the role assigned to innovation in Colombia Mechanism

Description

The collective nature of politics

Knowledge is considered as a public good. Solving the problem of collective action to produce it was solved through white papers and public investments. In those documents, knowledge was linked with fostering innovation to increase the productivity and competitiveness of the country. This solution to foster knowledge production was reinforced in the analysed period of time. Thus, most of the white papers consulted (73% of them) have strategies to encourage knowledge production according to productive sectors Colombia tried to develop two governances, the governance of innovation (NSST) and the governance of competitiveness (NASCI). However, the last one increased their importance, capturing the governance of innovation by the Decree 1500 of 2012. This expansion produced overlaps and tensions between the systems. Those were solved giving more importance to the NASCI, instead of improving the coordination between the institutional arrangements. Thus, it was decided to merge them under the umbrella of the governance of competitiveness by the Decree 1651 of 2019 The governances of innovation and competitiveness showed two bias. The first one was towards government participation; both of them shared it. The second bias was according to academic sector participation in the first governance, and the industrial sector in the second one. The industrial sector faced a lack of participation in the governance of innovation which fostered their involvement in the governance of competitiveness. It allowed strengthening their vision of the role of innovation. The merging of the institutional arrangements described in the previous mechanism could be understood as evidence of the power allocation by the industrial sector

The institutional density of politics

The political authority and power asymmetries

(continued)

174

M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

Table 7.3 (continued) Mechanism

Description

The complexity and opacity of politics

Circa 88% of the white papers consulted in the period of the analysis showed the role of innovation as a source to increase industrial productivity. This understanding was also identified in the National Development Plans from 1990 to 2018 and also in the relevant regulations for the NSST and the NASCI, such as the Law 1253 of 2008 and 1286 of 2009. This understanding of the role of innovation depicts a mental-map named by us as Innovation for economic productivity

Source Author’s own elaboration

and 2015 a negative or null productivity growth (Matallana, 2017).20 On average, its productivity was around 0.3%, which was lower than similar countries like Peru, Ecuador or South Africa (DNP, 2016). Considering the role of innovation a driver for increasing exports, own calculations based on the World Development Indicators (2018) showed between 1991 and 2016 high-technology exports shared circa 6.5% of the total manufactured exports of the country, whereas the share for the total exports was less than 2%. The second objective was to increase indirectly the population’s quality of life as a consequence of achieving the first one. In this vein, and considering the results showed by the first objective, the 14.13% of the national population is still living with Unsatisfied Basic Needs (DANE, 2020a), and more than 19% of the population is living in multidimensional poverty (DANE, 2020b). Thus, we argue that the role assigned to innovation in the period of study has not contributed to improve the quality of life as was expected. The analysis of the three elements to claim the existence of a lock-in situation of the role assigned to innovation showed clear results. Thus, the role assigned to innovation in Colombia is in a lock-in situation shaped by aligning with an indirect approach to development. This result leads 20 According to the author, productivity was measured considered the Total Factor Productivity (TFP), which along with the labour productivity is commonly using to assess the productivity performance, for more detail see Hulten (2001).

7

A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

175

to consider the challenges that the self-reinforcing mechanisms have to address to avoid the adverse effects linked to this situation. In this vein, the purpose of the next section will be to discuss those challenges and summarise the results of this study.

7.7

Discussion

This paper aims to demonstrate if the role assigned to innovation in Colombia was in a lock-in situation featured by its understanding only as a medium to increase industrial productivity. The data studied showed such lock-in situation in the role assigned to innovation. This lock-in of the role assigned to innovation was the result of the three path-dependence phases described in the model discussed in Sect. 7.2. Sections 7.4– 7.6 discussed the evolution of this path-dependence process. Figure 7.3 helps to summarise the evolution of the role assigned to innovation in Colombia according to the three phases of a path-dependence process. First, in the pre-formation phase, the institutional entrepreneurs (IEs), both collective and individually, sought to change the rules of the game as a strategy to overcome the period of violence in the country. This commitment led IEs to build the juncture phenomenon, which allowed to introduce economic liberalisation process as divergent change. Second, in the formation phase, two elements frame the implementation of the four self-reinforcing mechanisms discussed in Sect. 7.5. The first element was the economic liberalisation process in the early 1990s, and second one was the aim to access to international markets by the national industry and the utilisation of international trade agreements signed by the country in the 2000s. Those mechanisms followed Lindblom’s model and remained under a first-order learning process. In this first-order learning process, the role assigned to innovation was in an indirect approach to development. Finally, regarding the lock-in phase, this stage began (Letter ‘(a)’ in Fig. 7.3) in 2012 with the inclusion of innovation as a topic to be managed by the NASCI. The Law of the National Plan for the period 2014–2018 (Law 1753 of 2015) marked the beginning of the second sub-phase of the lock-in process (Letter ‘(b)’ in Fig. 7.3). This Law ordered to merge the governance structure of competitiveness and innovation. In 2019, the Law for the National Development Plan for the period 2018–2022 reinforced this process (Law 1955 of 2019). The conceptual framework discussed in Sect. 7.2 provided useful entrances to discuss and reflect the two aims of this study. In this vein,

176

M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

Fig. 7.3 Role assigned to innovation in Colombia in the period 1990–2018 (2009 Source Based on Sydowet al. ())

the path-dependence definition given by Levi (1997) was useful to study the role performed by innovation in the period 1990–2018 in Colombia. Also, in our analysis, the Institutional Entrepreneurship was not only crucial to understand the process of lock-in, but also to disentangle the process that takes place between pre-formation phase and formation phases. Finally, the path dependence’s stages depicted by Sydow, et al. (2009), along with the four self-reinforcing mechanisms explained by Pierson (2000), were central to claim if one situation is in a lock-in. Besides, those mechanisms were useful to explain with more detail an incremental policy process, regarding Lindblom’s model, which makes them a powerful tool in the policy analysis field. Considering that a lock-in situation cannot go on forever, it is necessary for further research to discuss the alternative and necessary roles that

7

A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

177

could be assigned to innovation in emerging economies. We believe that such roles should bring opportunities for those living under conditions of poverty and marginality. In this vein, path-creation literature (Garud et al., 2010) would provide the framework to explore this concern. Also, it will be fruitful to study the challenges that governance and innovation policies have to address to contribute, as self-reinforcing mechanisms, in the process of path-creation. Table 7.4 describes those challenges. The challenges pointed out in Table 7.4 need to be addressed in the Colombian case to overcome the adverse effects of the lock-in situation of the role assigned to innovation. To this end, it should be necessary to consider, among others, the following questions: how to reconfigure the governance and policies of innovation? How to change or complement the directionality of the role assigned to innovation in Colombia? How to increase the inclusion capacity of the current governance structures to develop an inclusive-governance of innovation? Also, how to introduce a new generation of innovation policies as a permanent field in the policymaking process in Colombia? These questions will be part of an incoming article.

The number of heterogeneous actors, along with their interests and values, has been increasing (Kuhlmann, 2007). This situation requires that the governance of innovation guarantees the representativeness of actors from different realms (Palmberg & Lemola, 2012), mainly when the inclusion capability of governance structures is currently under debate21 Regarding the adverse outcomes that innovation policies are producing in terms of poverty (Borrás, 2009) and welfare (Soete, 2013), the governance of innovation needs to consider the alignment of their actors with social and economic concerns (Arnold, et al., 2003; OCDE, 2003) to fulfil in a more satisfactory and legitim way their expectations

Actors’ representativeness

Governance of innovation

21 For instance, the traditional vision based on the notion of ‘triple helix’ (Leydesdorff, 2012) or the Sabato triangle (academia, government and firms) (Salazar, 2013) that describes the main actors of the National Innovation Systems is challenged by the notion of ‘quadruple helix’ (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009). In this frame, it could be settled the idea of transformative policies developed by Schot & Steinmueller (2018). These authors consider as crucial to include civil society as a fundamental dancer in the frame number 3 that they develop to explain the new directions of the innovation policies.

Actors’ alignment

Description

Challenge

Area

Table 7.4 Challenges of governance and innovation policies for future roles assigned to innovation in emerging economies

178 M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

Area The coordination ability of the governance of innovation is defied. In this vein, effective governance is crucial (Borrás, 2009) to identify collaboration strategies between different actors which make possible to tackle market failures, improve coordination between governmental entities and among public, private, academia and the civil society, discuss and negotiate budgets (Arnold, et al., 2003), and set the public agenda’s priorities

Governance’s effectiveness

(continued)

Description

Challenge

7 A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

179

This dimension has become more salient and robust (Kuhlmann & Ordóñez-Matamoros, 2017b), and it leads to consider the emergence of a new generation of policies (Kuhlmann & Rip, 2018). This new generation is aligned to the direct approach to development and demands the governance of innovation, which fits with a learning of second order. Ideas like social innovation (Howaldt et al., 2018), inclusive innovation (Foster & Heeks, 2013) and transformative policies (Schot & Steinmueller, 2018), among others, represent these new generation of policies. These policies have the aim to promote social inclusion (Karnani, 2007; Papaioannou, 2014; Fressoli et al., 2014; Mazzucato, 2015) and attend social concerns directly (Harsh et al., 2017) Innovation policies are facing an increasing level of complexity (Laranja, 2012) to reach social objectives. In this challenge, the State has to increase the variety of perspectives in the policymaking process (Lindblom, 1959). The variety of perspectives should also come from non-State actors, like those who are living in marginal conditions

Innovation’s social dimension

Innovation policies

Increasing complexity level

Description

Challenge

(continued)

Area

Table 7.4

180 M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

Source Authors’ own

Area

Description The State has to play an active role. It means to consider the State as a source for creating and transforming markets (Mazzucato, 2015) and enabling economic development (Rossiter & Smith, 2017). Aligned with the new generation of innovation policies, some scholars demand that the State guarantees innovation policies which address social concerns (Altenburg, 2009), involve designers and users and align their interests (Heiskanen et al., 2010)

Challenge State’s role

7 A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

181

182

M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

Funding This work was supported partially by Universidad Externado de Colombia (Scholarship-2018) and Fundación para el Futuro de ColombiaCOLFUTURO (Scholarship-Loan-2017).

References Alarcón, Ó. (2015, June 29). El Espectador. Retrieved from La séptima papeleta: https://www.elespectador.com/opinion/la-septima-papeleta-col umna-569151 Altenburg, T. (2009). Building inclusive innovation systems in developing countries: challenges for IS research. In B.-A. Lundvall, K. Joseph, C. Chaminade & J. Vang (Edits.), Handbook of innovation systems and developing countries (pp. 33–56). Edward Elgar. Arnold, E., Boekholt, P., Deiaco, E., McKibbin, S., De la Mothe, J., Simmonds, P., Stroya, J., & Zaman, R. (2003). Research and innovation governance in eight countries: A meta-analysis of work funded by EZ (Netherlands) and RCN (Norway). Technopolis. Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2017). Science, technology and innovation for what? Exploring the democratization of knowledge as an answer. In S. Kuhlmann & G. Ordóñez-Matamoros (Eds.), Research handbook on innovation governance for emerging economies (pp. 377–404). Edward Elgar. Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65–107. Borrás, S. (1 de March de 2009). The widening and deepening of innovation policy (or policies): What conditions provide for effective governance? Recuperado el 14 de May de 2018, de Scandinavian Working Papers in Economics: https:// swopec.hhs.se/lucirc/abs/lucirc2009_002.htm Bortagaray, I., & Ordóñez-Matamoros, G. (2012). Introduction to the special issue of the review of policy research: Innovation, innovation policy, and social inclusion in developing countries. Review of Policy Research, 669–671. Bovaird, T. (2005). Public governance: Balancing stakeholder power in a network society. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(2), 2017–2228. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2009). ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal Technology Management, 46(3/4), 201–234. Carrillo Flórez, F. (2016, July 3). El Tiempo. Retrieved from La séptima papeleta: el sueño estudiantil que cambió la historia: https://www.eltiempo.com/arc hivo/documento/CMS-16635743

7

A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

183

Castro Caicedo, G. (1989, August 8). Fundación Séptima Papeleta. Retrieved from Macha del Silencio: https://fundacionseptimapapeleta.wordpress.com/ marcha-del-silencio/ Chataway, J., Hanlin, R., & Kaplinsky, R. (2014). Inclusive innovation: An architecture for policy development. Innovation and Development, 4(1), 33–54. COLCIENCIAS. (2008). Colombia construye y siembre futuro: Política Nacional de Fomento a la Investigación y la Innovación. COLCIENCIAS. COLCIENCIAS. (10 de June de 2019). Presupuesto Colciencias. Obtenido de Departamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación—Colciencias. https://www.colciencias.gov.co/la-ciencia-en-cifras/presupuesto-colcie ncias Cooke, P. (May de 2012). Transversality and transition: Green innovation and new regional path creation. European Planning Studies, 20(5), 817–834. Correa Henao, M. (2008). Libertad de Empresa en el Estado Social de Derecho. Universidad Externado de Colombia. Cozzens, S. E., & Kaplinsky, R. (2009). Innovation, poverty and inequality: Cause, coincidence, or co-evolution? In B.-A. Lundvall, K. Joseph, C. Chaminade, & J. Vang (Eds.), Handbook of innovation systems and developing countries: Building domestic capabilities in a global setting (pp. 57–82). Edward Elgar. Cozzens, S. E., Gatchair, S., Kim, K.-S., & Ordóñez-Matamoros, G. (2007). Knowledge and development. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch & J. Wajcman (Edits.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 787–811). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. DANE. (2020a, March 9). DANE. Retrieved from Necesidades básicas insatisfechas (NBI): https://www.dane.gov.co/files/censo2018/informacion-tec nica/CNPV-2018-NBI.xlsx DANE. (2020b, March 10). DANE. Retrieved from Pobreza Monetaria y Multidimensional en Colombia 2018: https://www.dane.gov.co/files/investigacio nes/condiciones_vida/pobreza/2018/anex_pobreza_2018.xls David, P. A. (2007). Path dependence: A foundational concept for historical social science. Cliometrica, 1(2), 91–114. Dawley, S., Mackinnon, D., Cumbers, A., & Pike, A. (2015). Policy activism and regional path creation: The promotion of offshore wind in North East England and Scotland. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 257–272. Dawley, S., Pike, A., & Tomaney, J. (2010). Towards the resilient region? Local Economy, 25(8), 650–667. DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 3–21). Ballinger.

184

M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

DNP. (1990). CONPES 2494: Programa de Modernización de la Economía Colombiana. DNP. DNP. (1991a). CONPES 2510: Crédito del Banco Mundial para reconversión industrial. DNP. DNP. (1991b). CONPES 2540: Política de Ciencia y Tecnología. DNP. DNP. (1991c). Plan Nacional de Desarrollo: La Revolución Pacífica—Plan de Desarrollo Económico y Social (1990–1994). Departamento Nacional de Planeación. DNP. (1993). CONPES 2652: Acciones para la Modernización Industrial. DNP. DNP. (1994a). CONPES 2739: Política Nacional de Ciencia y tecnología 1994— 1998. DNP. DNP. (1994b). CONPES 2724: Por una Colombia Competitiva. DNP. DNP. (1995a). CONPES 2762: Política de Modernización y Reconversión Industrial. DNP. DNP. (1995b). Plan Nacional de Desarrollo: El Salto Social (1994–1998). Departamento Nacional de Planeación. DNP. (1996). CONPES 2848: Seguimiento a la Política Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología. DNP. DNP. (2000). CONPES 3080: Política Nacional de Ciencia y tecnología 2000– 2002. DNP. DNP. (2002). CONPES 3179: Política Integral de apoyo los programas de Doctorado Internacionales. DNP. DNP. (2004). CONPES 3280: Optimización de los instrumentos de desarrollo empresarial. DNP. DNP. (2005). CONPES 3360: Autorización a la nación para contratar empréstitos... DNP. DNP. (2006). CONPES 3439: Institucionalidad y principios rectores de política para la competividad y productividad. DNP. DNP. (2007a). CONPES 3484: Política Nacional para la Transformación Productiva y la Promoción de las Micro, Pequeñas y Medianas Empresas: Un Esfuerzo Público-Privado. DNP. DNP. (2007b). Plan Nacional de Desarrollo: Estado Comunitario - Desarrollo para todos (2006–2010). Departamento Nacional de Planeación. DNP. (2008a). CONPES 3527: Política Nacional de Productividad y Competitividad. DNP. DNP. (2008b). CONPES 3533: Bases de un plan de acción para la adecuación del sistema de propiedad intelectual a la competitividad y productividad nacional 2008–2010. DNP. DNP. (2009). CONPES 3582: Política Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. DNP.

7

A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

185

DNP. (2011). Plan Nacional de Desarrollo: Prosperidad para todos - Más empleo, menos probreza y más seguridad (2010–2014). Departamento Nacional de Planeación. DNP. (2015a). CONPES 3834: Lineamientos de política para estimular la inversión privada en ciencia, tecnología e innovación a través de deducciones tributarias. DNP. DNP. (2015b). Plan Nacional de Desarrollo: Todos por un nuevo país—Paz, Equidad y Educación (2014–2018). Departamento Nacional de Planeación. DNP. (2016). CONPES 3866: Política de Desarrollo Productivo. DNP. DNP. (2018a). Colombia Productiva y Sostenible: Un propósito de todos. Retrieved October 15, 2018, from DNP. https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Pre nsa/Colombia%20productiva%20Actulizaci%C3%B3n.pdf DNP. (2018b). CONPES 3934: Política de Crecimiento Verde. DNP. DNP. (2018c). Evaluación de resultados a inversiones del SGR: Sector Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. DNP. DNP. (2018d). Plan Nacional de Desarrollo: Pacto por Colombia—Pacto por la equidad (2018–2022). Presidencia de la República. Dutrénit, G., & Sutz, J. (Eds.) . (2014). Sistemas de Innovación para un Desarrollo Inclusivo. Edward Elgar. Edquist, C. (1 de February de 2018). Towards a holistic innovation policy (or policies): Can the Swedish national innovation council serve as a role model? Recuperado el 6 de September de 2018, de Scandinavian Working Papers in Economics. https://swopec.hhs.se/lucirc/abs/lucirc2018_002.htm El Tiempo. (1990, February 22). Fundación Séptima Papeleta. Retrieved from Por ahí puede ser la cosa. Editorial de El Tiempo. https://fundacionseptim apapeleta.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/por-ahi-puede-ser-la-cosa-editorialde-el-tiempo-22021990/ Fagerberg, J., & Srholec, M. (2009). Innovation systems, technology and development: Unpacking the relationship. In B.-A. Lundvall, K. Joseph, C. Chaminade & J. Vang (Eds.), Handbook of innovation systems and developing countries: Building domestic capabilities in a global setting (pp. 83–108). Edward Elgar. Fligstein, N. (February de 1997). Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4), 397–405. Foster, C., & Heeks, R. (2013). Conceptualising inclusive innovation: Modifying systems of innovation frameworks to understand diffusion of new technology to low-income consumers. European Journal of Development and Research, 25(3), 333–335. Fressoli, M., Arond, E., Abrol, D., & Smith, A. (June de 2014). When grassroots innovation movements encounter mainstream institutions: Implications for models of inclusive innovation. Innovation and Development, 4(2), 277–292.

186

M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

García, W. A. (2008, October 26). Séptima Papeleta. Retrieved from Los Estudiantes Salvaron a Colombia. http://septimapapeleta.blogspot.com/2008/10/ los-estudiantes-salvaron-colombia_26.html Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., & Karnøe, P. (2010). Path dependence or path creation? Journal of Management Studies, 760–774. Godin, B. (2015). Innovation: From the forbidden to a cliché. Journal of Business Anthropology, 4(2), 219–227. Harsh, M., Woodson, T. S., Cozzens, S., Wetmore, J. M., Soumonni, & Cortes, R. (2017). The role of emerging technologies in inclusive innovation: The case of nanotechnology in South Africa. Science and Public Policy, 597–607. Heiskanen, E., Hyysalo, S., Kotro, T., & Repo, P. (May de 2010). Constructing innovative users and user-inclusive innovation communities. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(4), 495–511. Henning, M., Stam, E., & Wenting, R. (2013). Path dependence research in regional economic development: Cacophony or knowledge accumulation? Regional Studies, 47 (8), 1348–1362. Howaldt, J., Kaletka, C., Schröder, A., & Zirngiebl, M. (2018). Atlas of social innovation—New practices for a better future. Sozialforschungsstelle, TU Dortmund University. Hulten, C. R. (2001). Total factor productivity: A short biography. In C. R. Hulten, E. R. Dean & M. J. Harper (Eds.), New developments in productivity analysis (pp. 1–54). University of Chicago Press. Jessop, B. (1999). The governance of complexity and the complexity of governance: Preliminary remarks on some problems and limits of economic guidance. Recuperado el 3 de October de 2018, de Department of Sociology, Lancaster University. http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/ papers/Jessop-Governance-of-Complexity.pdf Jessop, B. (2007). The governance of complexity and the complexity of governance, revisited. In J. Bogg & R. Geyer (Eds.), Complexity, science and society (pp. 151–155). Radcliffe. Karnani, A. (1 de July de 2007). The mirage of marketing to the bottom of the pyramid: How the private sector Can help alleviate poverty. California Management Review, 49(4), 90–111. Kuhlmann, S. (2001). Future governance of innovation policy in Europe—Three scenarios. Research Policy, 30, 953–976. Kuhlmann, S. (2007). Governance of innovation: Practice, policy, and theory as dancing partners. Delivered upon delivered upon the acceptance of the Chair Foundations of Science, Technology and Society Faculty Management and Governance (p. 28). University of Twente. Kuhlmann, S., & Ordóñez-Matamoros, G. (Eds.). (2017a). Research handbook on innovation governance for emerging economies: Towards better models. Edward Elgar.

7

A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

187

Kuhlmann, S., & Ordóñez-Matamoros, G. (2017b). Introduction: Governance of innovation in emerging countries: Understanding failures and exploring options. In S. Kuhlmann & G. Ordóñez-Matamoros (Eds.), Research handbook on innovation governance for emerging economics: Towards better models (pp. 1–34). Edward Elgar. Kuhlmann, S., & Rip, A. (2018). Next-generation innovation policy and grand challenges. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 448–454. Kuhlmann, S., Shapira, P., & Smits, R. (2010). Introduction. Systemic perspective: The innovation policy dance. In S. Kuhlmann, P. Shapira & R. Smits (Eds.), The theory and practice of innovation policy (or policies): An international research handbook (pp. 1–22). Edward Elgar. Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions; Whit an introductory Essay by Ian Hacking (4th ed.). The University of Chicago Press. Laranja, M. (2012). Network governance of innovation policies: The Technological Plan in Portugal. Science and Public Policy, 39, 655–668. Leca, B., & Naccache, P. (2006). A critical realist approach to institutional entrepreneurship. Organization, 13(5), 627–651. Lemaitre Ripoll, J. (2016). Asamblea Nacional Constituyente. Retrieved from El movimiento estudiantil de 1989 y la Séptima Papeleta. http://proyectos.ban repcultural.org/asamblea-nacional-constituyente/es/texto-catalogo/movimi ento-estudiantil-1989-y-la-septima-papeleta Levi, M. (1997). A model, a method, and a map: Rational choice in comparative and historical analysis. In M. I. Lichbach & A. S. Zucjerman (Eds.), Comparative politics: Rationality, culture and structure (pp. 19–41). Cambridge University Press. Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The triple helix, quadruple helix, …, and an N-Tuple of helices: Explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3, 25–35. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through” . Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88. Lucio-Arias, D., Salazar, M., & Durán-Sánchez, M. F. (2013). Entre la gobernabilidad y la gobernanza: Colciencias y los sistemas nacionales de ciencia y tecnología y de innovación. In M. Salazar, M. Lozano-Borda, L. Fog & F. Sagasti (Eds.), Colciencias cuarenta años: entre la legitimidad, la normatividad y la práctica (pp. 37–59). Observatorio de Ciencia y Tecnología (OCyT). Martin, R. (2010). Roepke lecture in economic geography—Rethinking regional path dependence: Beyond lock-in to evolution. Economic Geography, 86(1), 1–27. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (5 de July de 2006). Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography, 395–437.

188

M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

Matallana, S. (October de 2017). Productividad y competitividad en Colombia: Retos y oportunidades. Recuperado el 29 de November de 2018, de Presentaciones del evento 10 años de CEPEC. http://www.urosario.edu.co/Period ico-Nova-Et-Vetera/Documentos/Productividad-y-Competitividad-en-Col ombia-Santiag.pdf Mazzucato, M. (2013). The entrepreneurial state: debunking public vs. private sector myths. Anthem Press. Mazzucato, M. (2015). From market fixing to market-creating: A new framework for economic policy. SWPS, 1–19. OCDE. (2003). Governance of public research: Toward a better practices. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OCDE. (2013). Estudios de la OCDE de las políticas de innovación: Colombia, evaluación general y recomendaciones. OCDE. OCyT. (2017). Informe Anual de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología 2017. In C. I. Pardo Martínez & A. Cotte Poveda (Eds.). OCyT. Ordóñez-Matamoros, G., Tadlaoui, S., Porras Alzate, S., Duarte García, J. A., López, L. H., Marínez Fajardo, L. P., & Calderón-Peña, G. A. (2013). Manual de Análisis y Diseño de Políticas Públicas. In G. Ordóñez-Matamoros (Ed.). Ordóñez-Matamoros, G., Centeno, J. P., Arond, E., Jaime, A., & Arias, K. (2018). La paz y los retos de la política de ciencia, tecnología e innovación en Colombia. In C. Soto I. (Ed.), Seguimiento y análisis de políticas públicas en Colombia—2017 (pp. 137–168). Universidad Externado de Colombia. Palmberg, C., & Lemola, T. (2012). Governance of innovation systems. In WB, Agricultural innovation systems: An investment sourcebook (pp. 469–479). The World Bank. Pansera, M., & Owen, R. (2018). Framing inclusive innovation within the discourse of development: Insights from case studies in India. Research Policy, 47 , 23–34. Papaioannou, T. (2014). How inclusive can innovation and development be in the twenty-first century? Innovation and Development, 4(2), 187–202. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. The American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267. Pinzón Camargo, M. A. (2015). Retos de la gobernanza en ciencia y tecnología para cerrera brechas socioeconómicas: reflexiones en torno al caso colombiano. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Prieto, G. C., Mayorga, A., & Piñeros, A. (April de 2018). Limitaciones de la articulación de la ciencia, la tecnología y la innovación con la política nacional de desarrollo productivo. Recuperado el 26 de November de 2018, de Análisis/Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung en Colombia. https://library.fes.de/pdffiles/bueros/kolumbien/14401.pdf

7

A STUDY OF INNOVATION POLICIES AND …

189

Rennkamp, B. (2011). Innovation for all? Legitimizing science, technology and innovation policy in unequal societies. Ipskamp drukkers BV. Rip, A. (1992). Science and technology as dancing partners. In P. Kroes & M. Bakker (Eds.), Technological development and science in the industrial age (Vol. 144, pp. 231–270). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8010-6 Rossiter, W., & Smith, D. J. (2017). Institutions, place leadership and public entrepreneurship: Reinterpreting the economic development of Nottingham. Local Economy, 32(4), 374–392. Roth Deubel, A.-N. (2010). Las políticas públicas y sus principales enfoques análiticos. In A.-N. Roth Deubel (Ed.), Enfoques para el análisis de políticas públicas (pp. 17–65). Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Salazar Vargas, C. (1995). Las políticas públicas. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Salazar, M. (2013). Gobernabilidad del SNCyT: El papel de los consejos de programas nacionales de ciencia y tecnología. In M. Salazar, M. LozanoBorda, L. Fog & F. Sagasti (Eds.), Colciencias cuarenta años: Entre la legitimidad, la normativad y la práctica (pp. 588–633). Observatorio de Ciencia y Tecnología (OCyT). Salazar, M., Lozano-Borda, M., & Lucio-Arias, D. (2013). Ciencia, tecnología e innovación para un desarrollo inclusivo en Colombia: Programas piloto desarrollados por Colciencias. In G. Dutrémot, & J. Sutz (Eds.), Sistemas de Innovación para un Desarrollo Inclusivo—La experiencia latinoamericana (pp. 125–153). Edward Elgar. Salerno, F. M. (2007). Path dependence and institutional reform: A case study on the reform of Italian telecommunications institutions—1979–2007 . London School of Economics and Political Science, Government Department. Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (31 de August de 2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 1–14. Smith, A., Stirling, A., & Berkhout. (2005). The governance of sustainable sociotechnical transitions. Research Policy, 34, 1491–1510. Smith, A., Fressoli, M., & Thomas, H. (2014). Grassroots innovation movements: Challenges and contributions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, 114–124. Soete, L. (2013). Innovation, growth and welfare: from creative destruction to destructive creation. University of Sussex. SPRU DIG-IT workshop. Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 1–21. Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Holtmann, P. (2011). How history matters in organizations: The case of path dependence. Management & Organizational History, 6(1), 81–110. The World Bank. (2018, October 15). Gini Index (World Bank estimate). Retrieved from The World Bank: Data. https://bit.ly/2DOvjcN

190

M. A. PINZÓN-CAMARGO AND G. ORDÓÑEZ-MATAMOROS

Tracey, P., Philips, N., & Jarvis, O. (January–February de 2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22(1), 60–80. Villa López, L., & Melo Velásco, J. (2017). Panorama de la innovación social en Colombia en 2017. Revista Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, 56(156), 37–51. Wasserman, M. (17 de March de 2017). El Tiempo. Recuperado el 26 de November de 2018, de El Documento Conpes que nunca fue. https://www.eltiempo.com/opinion/columnistas/moises-wasserman/eldocumento-conpes-que-nunca-fue-68516 World Development Indicators. (2018, October 18). High-technology exports (% Of Manufactured Exports). Retrieved from Data Catalog. https://bit.ly/2Oi Y7MK.

PART II

STI Governance

CHAPTER 8

Operational Innovation Policies in Emerging Economies: A Social Network Analysis of the Royalties Fund for Innovation in Colombia Juan Pablo Centeno

1 The terms innovation policy and science, technology and innovation policy are used here indistinctively to refer broadly to those actions designed and implemented by governments aimed at fostering the introduction of new products or processes into the market, as well as those aimed at improving economic competitiveness and social welfare, involving the production and use of knowledge as well as research, technology, education, environment, labor and industrial policies, among others (Chaminade & Edquist, 2010; Edler & Fagerberg, 2017; Fagerberg, 2017; Kuhlmann, 2001; Kuhlmann & Edler, 2003).

J. P. Centeno (B) Centro de Investigaciones y Proyectos Especiales—CIPE, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Ordónez-Matamoros et al. (eds.), Policy and Governance of Science, Technology, and Innovation, Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80832-7_8

193

194

J. P. CENTENO

8.1

Introduction

Public policy subsystems host a wide diversity of actors from multiple governance levels who play different roles and seek to have a degree of incidence in policy (Sabatier, 1993). In this process, actors interact and become interrelated, shaping policy networks , i.e., “stable patterns of social relations between interdependent actors, which take shape around policy problems and/or policy programs” (Klijn et al., 1995, p. 439). The case of innovation policy1 and instruments is a relevant example of how a policy network can operate within a policy domain, particularly because science, technology and innovation (STI) activities involve the collaboration, communication and interplay of different actors within innovation systems (Edquist, 1997; Freeman, 1987; Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993). Innovation policy networks are built on the assumption that actors cannot keep pace with the changes in an innovation system if they do not have access to external sources of knowledge (Pyka, 2002). Innovation policy networks in Colombia have been studied from a governance point of view, focusing on, for example, different levels of analysis: strategic, programmatic and social levels/networks (Orozco, et al., 2015, 2019; Pantoja & Moreno, 2018). Regulatory or strategic policy networks are shaped by the instances and councils that have the legal mandate to define innovation policy orientations; programmatic policy networks are composed by organizations that implement innovation policies and programs; and, finally, social networks are shaped by the virtual space for deliberation on innovation policy issues, including public agencies and various actors, shaping a governance network (Orozco et al., 2015, 2019; Pantoja & Moreno, 2018). Nevertheless, the actors and networks that contribute to policy implementation on an operational basis and that exist underneath programmatic networks have not been addressed. Literature on innovation policy acknowledges the existence of multiple actors involved in policy within innovation systems, particularly from a functional point of view (Bergek et al., 2008). However, while mainly focusing on those leading actors and organizations that have a visible role in R&D and innovation activities—particularly under the multiple Helixes approaches (Triple, Quadruple, Quintuple) (De Oliveira Monteiro & Carayannis, 2017)—it has overlooked those actors with a less visible role since they are not stricto sensu STI actors/organizations.

8

OPERATIONAL INNOVATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES …

195

This chapter argues that these actors are relevant in providing conditions to enable the development of STI activities, therefore contributing to the implementation of STI policies & instruments on an operational basis (Edler, 2010). Here, STI is regarded as a practice field where those actors directly involved with R&D and developing innovation interact; sustained in turn by practice work repertoires, i.e., the set of activities and gestures deployed by actors in order to sustain a specific practice field (Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010). These enabling activities are carried out by actors indirectly involved in STI by mobilizing resources and providing technical services and whose role has been understudied by innovation systems and policy literature. In this regard, this chapter examines the operational policy network shaped by a particular STI policy instrument in Colombia: the royalties fund for STI in Colombia, implemented with the purpose of strengthening the capabilities of subnational regions in STI activities, by increasing STI funding at the regional level. I argue that between 2012 and 2018, this particular policy instrument has shaped a policy network at an operational level, involving a wide variety of actors who do not specialize in R&D or innovation activities, but enable the operationalization of STI by mobilizing resources at the regional level. What are the main features of this operational policy network? How is it different from a traditional policy network? Who are the most relevant organizations in this operational policy network? What is the role of non-STI organizations in this operational policy network? These are some of the questions that this research addresses. Drawing inspiration from the work of Orozco and colleagues (2015, 2019), and Balanzó et al. (2021), the research method here is a social network analysis that focuses on an operational policy network composed of actors (nodes) involved in the implementation of royalties-funded STI projects and the contracts (edges) that relate them to each other in the implementation process. Centrality metrics like degree and betweenness are analyzed in order to give an account of the dynamics and characteristics of the network. One of the main arguments for the recent reform of the royalties for STI funding scheme in 2018 was that political not-STI-specialized actors, such as subnational governments, were responsible for the projects. However, the network graph and metrics suggest that the most involved actors in implementing the projects were actual traditional STI actors like public universities, who have a potential role as systemic intermediaries.

196

J. P. CENTENO

Particularly, those universities with the most robust capabilities have been key players in developing this funding scheme. The chapter discusses the role of non-STI actors and reflects on the differences between traditional innovation policy networks and operational innovation policy networks. An underlying assumption here is that STI activities are not developed in a vacuum, but they are rather embedded in a much more complex context where many other actors contribute to its realization: even if R&D and innovation innovation-intensive actors carry them out, they are in turn facilitated by non-R&D intensive ones. In other words, “innovation rests on structures of institutions and organizations, and (its) performance depends on how the structures function operationally” (Smith, 2010, p. 89). Consequently, this analysis provides a wide approach on innovation policy networks, including both directly and indirectly involved actors in STI policy implementation. This chapter acknowledges that research and innovation networks spontaneously result from public interventions through policies and instruments (Kuhlmann et al., 2010). The traditional innovation system approach and its structural perspective fail to provide in-depth reflections on the implications of system dynamics “for both strategic and operational systemic policies including relevant institutions, agents and capabilities” (Smits et al., 2010, p. 426). This chapter contributes to filling this gap by addressing how the second—operational innovation policies and instruments—shape networks of actors that interact to fulfill systemic functions and implement innovation policies (Edler, 2010). Innovation policy instruments at the operational level might be a helpful mechanism for addressing societal challenges in regional territories, and a more fruitful unit of analysis for innovation policy & governance and sociotechnical change (Borrás & Edler, 2014; Salamon, 2002). This chapter intends to make a contribution to innovation policy networks and governance scholarly discussion by reflecting on the intersection of policy instruments and policy networks approaches. In particular, it provides an insight into the black box of innovation (Rosemberg, 1982), with some detail on the operational activities within an innovation system. This is relevant in the context of Colombia where there are wide gaps between different regional innovation systems in terms of STI capabilities; which in turn deepen socio-economic inequalities among regions. In emerging economies such as Colombia, the lack of capacities to design, implement and evaluate innovation instruments remains a challenge when

8

OPERATIONAL INNOVATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES …

197

discussing the role of policy as a component of innovation governance (Kuhlmann & Ordóñez-Matamoros, 2017). Furthermore, there is a growing need for innovation governance frameworks that contribute to addressing grand challenges and social inclusion (Kuhlmann & Rip, 2018) and, therefore, innovation policy instruments oriented toward inclusive development, specially in the LatinAmerican context (Crespi & Dutrénit, 2014; Dutrénit & Sutz, 2014). Understanding the interactive and operational dynamics surrounding policy instruments at subnational levels might contribute to this discussion, providing also some reflection on the most suited innovation governance arrangements for countries like Colombia, where there are still major societal challenges to be addressed by innovation policy instruments, in spite of some efforts already made (Bortagaray & Gras, 2014; Salazar et al., 2014). This study also generates data that might be helpful for Colombian policy makers given the recent reform of this funding scheme and its ongoing implementation. The remainder of the chapter is structured as follows: the next section presents the theoretical approach of this study, building on innovation systems, policy instruments, policy networks and functions of innovation systems to recreate an operational policy network approach. Section 8.3 presents the study’s methodology, including the description of the case, the main features of the data and the research method, which is social network analysis. Section 8.4 presents the results of the study and the main features of the analyzed network. Section 8.5 discusses the features of an operational policy network and compares it to a traditional policy network. The chapter concludes with some final remarks for future research.

8.2

Conceptual Approach

The conceptual approach of this study builds on the following literature streams: functional approach on innovation systems approach, policy instruments and policy networks approach. The intersection between these approaches is relevant to build a useful approach to address operational policy networks. This section presents their main features.

198

J. P. CENTENO

8.2.1

Functional Approach on Innovation Systems

STI has a systemic and interactive nature characterized by the interaction of multiple factors, particularly diverse actors and organizations (firms, universities, research institutes, public agencies, etc.) within a given institutional arrangement (with formal or informal institutions) with a primary goal: to develop, diffuse and use innovations (Edquist, 1997). This systemic approach on innovation suggests a turn from an emphasis on individual actions to emphasize collective actions that underpin innovation, focusing on the overall system level, a system that evolves in unplanned ways given its evolutionary nature (Chaminade & Edquist, 2010). Within innovation systems, networks of actors are formed in order to exchange resources and knowledge (Pyka, 2002). Actors within innovation systems have differential roles contributing to the achievement of the innovation system goal. This roles take the form of functions in innovation systems (Bergek et al., 2008; Hekkert et al., 2007) and can be regarded as typical of the STI practice field and the practice work that supports it (Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010). Traditional innovation systems approaches had a structural focus that failed to explain the innovation process within a system. These approaches had two shortcomings in particular: (1) they were too static, as they focused on innovation systems structures, and, (2) they were too deterministic on their institutional emphasis on the macro-level (Hekkert et al., 2007). The functional approach on innovation systems moves from a structural focus to a process/dynamic focus on innovation systems (Bergek et al., 2008). Bergek et al. (2008) argue that the following functions contribute to the achievement of the innovation system goal: (1) knowledge development and diffusion; (2) entrepreneurial experimentation; (3) influence on the direction of search; (4) market formation; (5) development of positive external economies; (6) legitimation and (7) resource mobilization. This last function is of particular interest in this chapter, since “the allocation of sufficient resources is necessary to make knowledge production possible” (Hekkert et al., 2007, p. 425), in other words, resource mobilization is a necessary supporting activity for the rest of systemic functions, which cannot go about without enough resources. The notion of resources goes beyond funding and includes different types of resources such as competence/human capital & skills, know-how & expertise, technical knowledge & services, logistics and complementary assets (Bergek et al., 2008; Johnson, 2001; van Lente et al., 2003).

8

OPERATIONAL INNOVATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES …

199

Mediation between actors emerges as a relevant role within innovation systems and networks. Bilateral relations for transferring knowledge and providing technical services, as well as systemic intermediation to “connect, translate and facilitate flows of knowledge” (van Lente et al., 2003, p. 248), appear as functions that keep a network connected. 8.2.2

Policy Instruments

In order to ensure the functional performance of innovation systems, systemic failures must be addressed through innovation policy (Chaminade & Edquist, 2010; Woolthuis et al., 2005). Innovation policy, as any public policy, is made up of policy instruments, i.e., “techniques of governance that, in one way or another, involve the utilization of state resources in order to both help define and achieve government goals” (Howlett et al., 2018, p. 147). They are devices that operationalize the rationales, objectives and strategies of a public policy; structure policy discourses and shape the interaction between different stakeholders within a policy domain (Lascoumes & Le Galès, 2016). According to this, policy instruments are understood as institutions that shape the interaction of different stakeholders within a policy domain, some of these actors are “the principal (the owner of the instrument, with ultimate responsibility), the agent (responsible for implementing), individuals and specific groups representing principal and agent, and interested stakeholders more generally, all with their own initial views and interests” (Edler et al., 2016, p. 8). In this regard, a distinctive feature of policy instruments is that they are political devices that involve third parties or a variety of actors in deploying public authority and resources, and they define which actors will be involved in the implementation process of public policy (Salamon, 2002). Policy instruments are re-defined by and re-define public issues, in an interactive process that demands their adjustment and shapes the diverse dynamics of the instruments according to the context and the moment of their application (Edler et al., 2016). In other words, governments can deploy policy instruments to foster articulation and coordination of actors (e.g., within an innovation system) and hence shape and strengthen policy networks (Cunningham & Ramlogan, 2016); as well as the attributes of a policy network can be a selection criteria when choosing a policy instrument in order to address public issues (Bressers & O’Toole Jr., 1998).

200

J. P. CENTENO

It is worth highlighting that policy instruments are a relevant component of innovation governance, and they emerge out of a coevolving interaction process between innovation practice, policy and theory, i.e., innovation policy dance metaphor (Kuhlmann et al., 2010). They are also a main pillar for governance of sociotechnical change, and they can contribute to correct both market and systemic failures and achieve specific policy goals like addressing grand challenges (Borrás & Edler, 2014). 8.2.3

Policy Networks Approach

Networks are often a relevant topic in innovation policy studies regarding innovation systems (Weber & Truffer, 2017) and can even be seen as a constitutive component of the latter (Freeman, 1987). Furthermore, network linkages might present systemic failures that can hamper innovation by disturbing interaction between actors, justifying public intervention through innovation policy (Carlsson & Jacobsson, 1997; Woolthuis et al., 2005), both in the case of mature and emerging innovation systems (Chaminade et al., 2009). Therefore, the policy network approach2 is relevant to address the interactive dynamics of actors involved in innovation processes within innovation systems. This approach describes a bottom-up implementation process of public policy using the interaction between a set of actors/organizations within a given institutional arrangement (Hjern & Porter, 1981; Scharpf, 1978). This interaction process involves the deployment of strategies by these actors in order to achieve their interests and objectives. An important assumption here is that actors depend on other actors to obtain the necessary resources to develop their strategies, forming relatively stable patterns of interaction. This suggests that actors cooperate, shaping a network of interdependent actors that interplay around a policy issue (Kickert et al., 1997). The complex interaction process between the actors in a network can be understood as games determined by rules and perceptions (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2000; Klijn et al., 1995). Public policy is the final outcome of this process or, in other words, it “is a result of interactions between 2 I intentionally use the expression approach to refer to policy networks, since it is argued that it lacks the explanatory power of an actual theory of the policy-making process (see Raab & Kenis, 2007).

8

OPERATIONAL INNOVATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES …

201

actors in games” (Klijn et al., 1995, p. 441). To sum up, Klijnet al. (1995) define policy networks as “more or less stable patterns of social relations between mutually dependent actors which form themselves around policy problems or clusters of resources and which are formed, maintained and changed by a series of games” (p. 439). In a broader sense, Rhodes (2006) argues that “policy networks are sets of formal institutional and informal linkages between governmental and other actors structured around shared if endlessly negotiated beliefs and interests in public policy making and implementation” (p. 426). There can be different types of networks depending on dimensions like, for example, the founding pact of the connections, the network architecture and the rule of relational game (Assens & Lemeur, 2016). The features of the above presented conceptual framework support the idea that innovation policy implementation and innovation practices rely on the operational performance of multiple organizations and institutions (Smith, 2010, p. 89), where a series of both innovation and R&D intensive (STI actors) and non-intensive (non-STI actors) actors and organizations deploy an array of practice work activities that support a particular practice field: innovation policy in this case (Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010). In this regard, a first research question emerges here: Q1: What is the role of non-STI actors within an operational policy network? A possible answer to this is that the diverse non-STI actors that operate within the operational policy network shaped by the STI royalties fund play a crucial role in mobilizing resources to support STI activities, i.e., they sustain the STI practice field through supporting activities as practice work. In sum, policy instruments are devices intended to operationalize public policy. They bring together a diverse set of public and nongovernmental actors that interact in this operationalization process, shaping operational networks among them. Here, operational refers to those arrays of specific activities needed to implement policy, which are defined in policy instruments. According to Smits et al. (2010) innovation policies at the operational level seek to maintain the steady state of the innovation system by focusing on the implementation of an existing

202

J. P. CENTENO

set of policies, to remove system failures in order to keep the innovation system competitive and dynamic. On this level, multiple set of actors contribute to the implementation of innovation policy on an operational basis (Edler, 2010). Then, policy instruments contribute to shaping policy networks at an operational level, i.e., a set of interactions between diverse organizations that play a distinctive functional role in the implementation process of a particular policy instrument to operationalize public policy.

8.3 8.3.1

Methodological Framework The Case: Networks in Royalties Fund for STI

STI policy in Colombia has struggled to get enough financial resources for implementation. It is well known that the country is far behind international standards, e.g., the country invests less than 1% of its gross domestic product (GDP) in R&D and STI activities while the OECD average exceeds 2%. However, a constitutional reform was made in 20113 in order to address this challenge: it created a funding scheme to invest 10% of the national income from mining royalties in STI projects at the subnational level. This royalties fund for STI aims to foster STI capabilities at the regional level and to prompt the use of knowledge for competitiveness and social welfare. It is worth highlighting that STI is the third policy domain that receives the most investment in the royalties funding scheme, both in terms of the number of projects funded (2%) and in the amount of resources (8%) (Departamento Nacional de Planeación, 2019). The institutional arrangement of this scheme includes a decision board called OCAD,4 which is the authority in charge of evaluating the projects presented by subnational governments to apply for royalties funding. This board is composed by three parties with the right of one vote each5 : • Five national government representatives: Ministry of Education, Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (ICT), 3 Constitutional reform number 05 of 2011: created the Royalties General System with a set of funds, including the Science, Technology and Innovation Fund which receives 10% of the national royalties income. 4 Spanish acronym for Collegiate Body for Administration and Decision. 5 See Presidential decree No. 1075 of 2012, article 10.

8

OPERATIONAL INNOVATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES …

203

Ministry of Agriculture, the national planning agency (Spanish acronym: DNP) and the national STI policy agency (Colciencias). The representatives of this party are the same, according to the national law. • Six regional government representatives: one for each of the six regions conformed in the frame of Royalties General System. The representatives of this party change annually. • Six representatives from public (four) and private (two) universities. The representatives of this party change every two years. Since subnational governments and university representatives must change periodically, an important number of different actors have been part of the OCAD, a board that resembles what Orozco and colleagues (2015, 2019) call regulatory system or national council instance, i.e., “a policy network of agencies that have the mandate to define the macroobjectives in an innovation system and are generally defined by law” (2015, p. 223). This network will not be analyzed here though. Subnational governments were responsible for submitting regional or local STI projects to the OCAD for evaluation and, if approved, the same board would designate a public organization to manage the implementation of the project. This organization, usually the same subnational governmental office that submitted the project, was responsible for executing the project within the time frame and with the resources approved. In doing so, the organization responsible for managing the project usually requires many different services and supplies to fulfill needs of the implementation process, so it would assure them by contracting other supplying organizations to provide them. Going into more detail, these contractors play an important role in operationalizing and materializing STI projects funded with royalties’ resources. This interrelation of actors built upon public contracts shaped a network of actors of a diverse typology: regional governmental offices, public and private universities, R&D organizations, small and mediumsized enterprises, individuals and academics, innovation firms, etc. This operational policy network comprises a set of actors involved in the execution and implementation of STI projects, taking to reality the policy objectives defined. This network is the analytical object of this chapter. It is worth mentioning that—despite increasing the level of expenditure on R&D and STI activities in Colombia (Cotte Poveda et al., 2019)—the royalties fund for STI has been a matter of great controversy

204

J. P. CENTENO

given its ambivalent impact on the national innovation system governance (Salazar, 2017), as well as negative externalities that justified its recent reform (Centeno, 2019). One of the main controversies of this policy instrument has to do with the actors involved in the implementation of STI projects funded with royalties: the major part of them were subnational governmental offices, i.e., political actors who did not have the specialized know-how to manage STI projects and superimpose their political agendas over the correct implementation of STI projects. Data indicates that 72% of the total projects approved until 2017 were executed by subnational government administrations (Centeno, 2019). This perception led to a recent reform in 2018 of the funding schemes so a wider range of actors could participate in the STI project cycle funded with royalties (Centeno, 2019). Indeed, the discussion on the reform of the royalties fund for STI made an overemphasis on the role of subnational governments tasked to execute the projects and overlooked the role of the contractors who had an important participation in project implementation. In this context, the reconstruction and representation of the network of actors involved in implementing STI royalties-funded projects would contribute to the understanding of the dynamics that distinguish this type of STI policy instruments. In fact, the available data would allow to verify this situation, so it is worth raising the following policy-related question at this point: Q2: What type of actors are the most important within the network of actors that participated in implementing STI projects funded with royalties between 2012 and 2018? As shown below in the network graphs, STI specialized actors like public universities played a more important role than policy makers and public opinion often argued. As suggested at this point, an important assumption here is the conception of the royalties fund for STI as an STI policy instrument, concerning the particularities and features described in the previous section. It is a specific policy ‘technique’ devised to provide resources for sustaining and operationalizing innovation policies at subnational levels, contributing in the long term to strengthen innovation capacities. The royalties fund for STI has the generic nature of a policy instrument (Lascoumes & Le Galès, 2007; Salamon, 1981), therefore serving multiple innovation purposes. In

8

OPERATIONAL INNOVATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES …

205

other words, it can be framed under the notion of functional innovation policy (Edler et al., 2016). It takes the form of a traditional innovation policy instrument aimed at correcting market failures such as low STI funding (Smits & Kuhlmann, 2004). Given these features, it lacks the broad strategic scope of innovation policy; the royalties fund for STI is rather policy instrument that operationally contributes to the steady state of different policy goals at the subnational levels (Smits et al., 2010). It can be regarded as an instrument for direct support to R&D and innovation, oriented toward the supply side of innovation, i.e., those actors who produce innovation; aiming at increasing R&D and innovation expenditure (Edler et al., 2016). Furthermore, the royalties fund for STI brings together a diverse set of actors as both the executors and contractors of the projects, shaping interactions between all those contributing to the implementation of innovation policy on an operational basis (Edler, 2010; Edler et al., 2016; Lascoumes & Le Galès, 2016; Salamon, 2002). A final remark: subnational governments had a predominant role in the project cycle, since they were the only ones with the authority to submit the projects to the OCAD and were able to exercise veto power during the decision-making process. This predominance was then clear during the design and decision-making process of the project, with an eventual incidence in the implementation process. However, this possible incidence is not addressed here. This chapter focuses on the projects’ implementation phase and the multiple actors that cooperate in doing so. 8.3.2

Data Collection

The time spam analyzed here goes from 2012 to 2018, i.e., the period between the creation of the fund and the aforementioned reform of the scheme. Consequently, the collected data does not account for the new scheme that is set to start operating in 2020. To read more about the controversies that led to this reform see Centeno (2019). The data for reconstructing the operational policy network, i.e., the network of the actors who carried out the projects, and those actors contracted to do so, was collected from a public data base that contains the information about the contracts funded with royalties resources from 2012 to 2018. This information is found in the web page of the General

206

J. P. CENTENO

Table 8.1 General features of the dataset

Number of contracts

5842

Number of actors Total amount of resources

1648 COP $ 2.700.108.897.683 COP $ 462.268.258

Average amount of resources per contract

Source Prepared by the author, based on monitoring of the general royalties system database

Royalties System.6 The database contains information about every project funded with royalties, including STI projects, the public organization in charge of its execution, the contract subscribed to operationalize the execution of the project, and the organization contracted to do so. This is a database that permits building a directed network where nodes are the organizations that contract and those contracted, and the edges are the contracts that relate them. The data was filtered in order to obtain only those contracts whose projects were approved by de STI OCAD. Also, since the focus here is on actors understood as organizations, this data was filtered in order to exclude those contractors who are individuals. It was divided following the subscription date of the contracts. This piece of information was not found for 24 contracts, so this was filled with the year date of the projects’ approval. Some features of the dataset are shown in the following Table 8.1. Figure 8.1 shows the number and value of contracts subscribed each year between 2012 and 2018. It is noteworthy that the value of the contracts in 2013 is far higher than the other years, even when the number of contracts is low. This has to do with the fact that almost half of the top 20 contracts with the highest value where subscribed in 2013. The reduction on the value of the contracts has to do with a reduction on the number of projects submitted to and approved by the OCAD, for multiple reasons (Centeno, 2019). However, the number of contracts increases due to the need to operationalize the projects previously approved.

6 See Monitoring of the Royalties General System: https://www.sgr.gov.co/SMSCE/ MonitoreoSGR/AvancesOCAD.aspx.

OPERATIONAL INNOVATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES …

1297

1200

$1,000,000

1331

1153

$917,747

Number of contracts

1029

$800,000

1000 $574,204 800 600

643

0

$400,000

$318,266

387

400 200

$600,000

$469,828

$238,120 $24

Colombian Pesos (COP)

1400

207

Millions

8

$200,000

$181,920

2 2012

$2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Fig. 8.1 Number and value of contracts (2012–2018) (N = 5842) (Source Monitoring of the royalties general system database)

8.3.3

Data Analysis: Social Network Analysis

The actors in the data base were classified into four categories: (1) public administration actors (2) higher education institutes (3) other STI actors and (4) other non-STI actors. In the network graph, they are represented by the nodes in orange, blue, green and gray, respectively. They were identified and classified according to the following criteria7 : the first type of actors is mainly composed by subnational governments which have the role of projects executors. The second, higher education institutes, are universities and other organizations with a role in the implementation of the projects. Other STI actors are those R&D firms, SMEs, laboratories and other organizations that are relevant for knowledge and innovation production and diffusion. Finally, non-STI actors are those who support knowledge and innovation production and diffusion by means of mobilizing resources for that end, including competence/human capital & skills, know-how & expertise, technical knowledge & services, logistics and complementary assets (Bergek et al., 2008; Johnson, 2001; van Lente et al., 2003). 7 This classification implied reviewing the institutional mission of the organizations and, in some cases, a one-by-one revision of the object of the contracts.

208

J. P. CENTENO

The position of each actor is measured by conducting a social network analysis8 and using three main centrality metrics: degree, closeness, betweenness (Wasserman & Faust, 2013). Orozco, et al. (2019) interpret Wasserman and Faust’s (2013, 1994) definitions of these measures as follows: Degree measure computes all direct relations to evaluate prestige of each actor. “The simplest definition of actor centrality is that central actors must be the most active in the sense that they have the most ties to other actors in the network or graph”. (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, p. 178) Closeness measures the ability to present reciprocal links. “The measure focuses on how close an actor is, to all the other actors in the set of actors. The idea is that an actor is central if it can quickly interact with all others.” (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, p. 183) Betweenness measure evaluates the capacity to connect different nodes in the networks. “An actor is central if it lies between other actors on their geodesics, implying that to have a large betweenness centrality, the actor must be between many of the actors via their geodesics” (Wasserman and Faust, 1994, p. 189), that means “a shortest path between two nodes”. (Wasserman and Faust, 1994, p. 110) Orozco et al. (2019, p. 6)

It is worth recalling that the ties connecting the nodes in the graph represent the contracts that oblige the actors with each other. Therefore, the interactions between them cannot be interpreted to be broader than the typical interaction of parts in a contract. The graph also shows some nodes wider than others based on their centrality degree. 8.3.4

Limitations

The following considerations shape the scope of this study: it presents an accumulative portrayal of an operational policy network, rather than a dynamic one. The connections that the graph illustrates are the aggregation of ties of every year from 2012 to 2018. Therefore, it presents a static view of a particular social structure (Raab & Kenis, 2007) where the interactions do not occur simultaneously. However, the network enables 8 Given the limited space for this document and the scope of the paper, a suggestion would be to consult Wasserman y Faust (2013) in order to obtain more detail on the mathematical and sociological extent of social network analysis.

8

OPERATIONAL INNOVATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES …

209

us to review how organizations have been relating to each other during this period of time regarding this particular STI funding mechanism. Also, the network metrics can approach the role of the different type of actors in this particular network, even offering a notion of possible systemic intermediaries in it (van Lente et al., 2003). Also, the possible incidence of subnational governments as a predominant actor in the project cycle on the morphology of the network is not addressed in this chapter. As stated above, it is recognized that these actors had veto power during the design and decision-making process, but when it comes to the implementation phase there are multiple other actors that emerge with a central role. Corruption practices could have also shaped the morphology of the network during the contracting process. As will be seen further on, there are connections between actors that involved a significant amount of financial resources and that have been implicated with corruption cases. The chapter does not account for this kind of situations, so further research and case studies will be needed to determine the impact of this dynamics on an operational policy network.

8.4

Results

As stated before, the royalties fund for STI is a policy instrument that shaped an operational policy network between 2012 and 2018, hosting several interactions between many different organizations that participated in the implementation of STI projects at the subnational level, particularly those organizations in charge of the execution of the projects and those contracted to help to operationalize the execution of the projects by developing the particular activities needed. The interactions rely on a contractual/legal basis, so this case resembles a steered network with a set of pilot actors that hold a central position and often define the nature of connections through contracts, and that tends to have a hierarchical governance structure (Assens & Lemeur, 2016). Figure 8.4 illustrates the operational policy network described before. There are 1648 organizations/actors identified in the network graph, with 2072 ties between them. The network is rather a sparse weakly interconnected one given its low density, which is 0,001. This is also sustained by the high diameter of this network, i.e., the maximum number of connections required to traverse the graph, which is 6 (see Table 8.2). The network also has an average clustering coefficient of 0,029; this relates to the number of cliques-size-three (triangles) in the network and

210

J. P. CENTENO

Table 8.2 Operational policy network general features

Nodes

1648

Ties Average degree Density Diameter Average path length Average clustering coefficient

2072 1,25 0,001 6 3,15 0,029

Source Monitoring of the royalties general system database

the potential number of these triplets. It gives a notion of how nodes are grouped together in the network by calculating if the nodes that are connected to a particular node are also connected to each other. Public administration actors are represented in the graph by the nodes in orange; higher education institutes are the nodes in blue; other STI actors appear as the green nodes and, finally, other non-STI actors are represented by the nodes in gray. Figure 8.2 shows that non-STI actors are the majority of the organizations that compose the network (64%), followed by other STI actors (27%), higher education organizations (6%) and, finally, public administration offices (3%). The numeric prevalence of non-STI actors in this innovation network can be interpreted as evidence that innovation relies on multiple organizations and institutions (Smith, 2010, p. 89). Public administration office 3%

Higher education institutions 6%

Other STI actors 27%

Non-STI actors 64%

Fig. 8.2 Actors in the operational policy network by typology (N = 1648) (Source Monitoring of the royalties general system database)

8

OPERATIONAL INNOVATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES …

211

However, the network graph visually suggests that higher education organizations (blue) appear to be most visible type of organization, with a wider size of the nodes, even if they are not the largest group. They appear to be the ones with the highest centrality degree, i.e., the most ties in the network, meaning that they are the most important actors in the network. This means that they have a strong participation in operationalizing STI projects funded with royalties fund, both as their executors and contractors. Figure 8.3 shows the average number of connections for each type of organization. It shows that even if non-STI actors are the largest group, they are connected to the graph in average by 1,5 ties. This means that each non-STI actor usually has a single tie connection to other nodes of the network, while higher education organizations and public administration offices are, in contrast, the ones with the higher average of ties even if they are the smallest group of actors in the network. The graph metrics for each node of the network reveal that only a group of 15 organizations have any betweenness centrality (Table 8.3). They are the actors that keep the network connected and therefore have an important intermediation role. These actors are mainly public universities (blue nodes in Fig. 8.4) from the subnational level, a couple of public administration offices and an innovation firm. Universidad Nacional de Colombia stands out as the organization with the highest betweenness centrality (17,505,83) and a degree centrality of 94, followed by Universidad del Valle with a betweenness centrality of 11,332,92 and the highest 16.0

15.1

14.0

11.9

12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0

1.5

1.3

Other STI actors

Non-STI actors

0.0 Higher education institutions

Public administration office

Fig. 8.3 Average number of ties of each type of actor in the operational policy network (Source Monitoring of the royalties general system database)

212

J. P. CENTENO

Table 8.3 Actors with betweenness centrality in the operational policy network within the royalties fund for STI in Colombia 2012–2018 No

Type of organization

Organization

Betweenness centrality

Degree centrality

1

Higher education organizations Higher education organizations Higher education organizations Higher education organizations Higher education organizations Higher education organizations Higher education organizations Higher education organizations Public administration office Higher education organizations Higher education organizations Other STI actors Public administration office

Universidad Nacional De Colombia

17,505,83

94

0,41

Universidad del Valle

11,332,92

232

0,42

Universidad de Caldas

10,181,33

219

0,48

Universidad del Cauca

5787,83

135

0,42

Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira

4189,83

202

0,39

Universidad de N riño

3815,83

123

0,39

Universidad de Antioquia

2598,08

65

0,30

Universidad Tecnológica del Choco

998,08

69

0,31

Departamento del Cauca

419,50

21

0,33

Universidad del Tolima

222,67

28

0,34

Universidad Industrial de Santander

195,00

59

1,00

Corporación Ruta N Medellín Corporación Autónoma Regional para el Desarrollo Sostenible del Choco—CODECHOCO Universidad de La Guajira

156,08

25

0,30

12,00

9

0,30

7,00

8

1,00

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 13

14

Higher education organizations

Closeness centrality

(continued)

8

OPERATIONAL INNOVATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES …

213

Table 8.3 (continued) No

Type of organization

Organization

15

Higher education organizations

Unidades Tecnológicas de Santander

Betweenness centrality 4,00

Degree centrality 5

Closeness centrality 1,00

Source Monitoring of the royalties general system database

degree centrality (232). These two public universities, along with Universidad de Caldas, Universidad del Cauca, Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira, Universidad de Nariño and Universidad de Antioquia, are salient organizations within their regional innovation systems, which happen to be some of the most developed in the country. Figure 8.5 illustrates how these mediator organizations relate to each other. They represent the core of the operational policy network by forming cliques between them. These organizations have, therefore a potential role as systemic intermediaries, that is, organizations that operate at the network or system level rather than bilaterally, and “connect, translate and facilitate flows of knowledge” (van Lente et al., 2003, p. 248). Figure 8.6 presents this potential systemic intermediary in a fourquadrant Cartesian plane according to their betweenness centrality (xaxis) and degree centrality (y-axis).9 In the upper right quadrant, we find Universidad del Valle and Universidad de Caldas as the most important in terms of their high connection and intermediation. Then, Universidad Nacional de Colombia stands out in the lower right quadrant as the one with the highest intermediation level, with a lower degree of centrality. In the left upper quadrant, there is a group of three public universities with an important level of connections but they are less an intermediary than others. These are Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira, Universidad del Cauca and Universidad de Nariño. They have a high degree centrality and a lower betweenness centrality. A group of less influential systemic intermediaries are Universidad Tecnológica del Chocó, Universidad de Antioquia, Universidad Industrial de Santander, Universidad del Tolima, Corporación Ruta N , Departamento del Cauca, Codechocó, Universidad 9 The axis cross in the mid-range (M ) value of each. This is = Max x+Minx . 2

214

J. P. CENTENO

Fig. 8.4 Operational policy network within the royalties fund for STI in Colombia 2012–2018 (Source Monitoring of the royalties general system database)

de La Guajira and Unidades Tecnológicas de Santander.. In contrast to these potential systemic intermediaries, Fig. 8.4 shows that green and gray nodes, i.e., other STI actors and non-STI actors, are tied to the network by a single edge. Figure 8.3 also shows that this is so: non-STI actors have an average of 1,5 ties. This can be regarded as a one-to-one mediation process that characterizes hard and soft intermediaries that mediate between their source of knowledge and their client

8

OPERATIONAL INNOVATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES …

215

Fig. 8.5 Actors with betweenness centrality in the operational policy network within the royalties fund for STI in Colombia 2012–2018 (Source Monitoring of the Royalties General System database)

in order to provide knowledge and technical services (hard functions) or management support regarding organizational and institutional aspects (soft functions) (van Lente et al., 2003). These organizations play a role in resource mobilization function within the operational policy network, therefore sustaining the practice field of knowledge production and STI implementation deploying practice work. As said before, these resources go beyond funding and include competence/human capital & skills, know-how & expertise, technical knowledge & services, logistics, and complementary assets (Bergek et al., 2008; Johnson, 2001; van Lente et al., 2003). Other STI actors (green) within the operational policy network are fundamentally public research institutes: the most notable of these is Instituto Amazónico de Investigaciones Científicas with a degree centrality of 56. Corporación Ruta N stands out as the only innovation firm in this group with a degree centrality of 25 and the only one with any betweenness centrality (Table 8.4). About non-STI actors that contribute to resource mobilization; they mainly supply laboratory equipment and scientific instruments (Table 8.5). The most important of them, regarding their centrality degree (8), are Analytica S.A. and Lanzetta Rengifo y Cia S.A.S. The above interpretation suggests that the operational policy network represented in Fig. 8.4 has two layers: the first layer is the core of the network that groups mainly universities as potential systemic intermediaries and have a prominent role in operationalizing STI projects; the

Corporación Ruta N

Universidad de La Guajira

0

50

100

8000

150

200

Degree centrality

10000

12000

14000

Universidad del Valle Universidad de Caldas

18000

Universidad Nacional de Colombia

16000

Betweenness centrality

Fig. 8.6 Potential systemic intermediaries in the operational policy network (Betweenness centrality vs. Degree centrality) (Source Monitoring of the royalties General system database)

Unidades Tecnológicas de Santander

6000

Universidad de AnƟoquia

4000

Departamento del Cauca

Universidad del Tolima

Codechoco

2000

Universidad Tecnológica del Chocó

0

Universidad Industrial de Santander

-2000

Universidad de Nariño

Universidad del Cauca

Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira

250

216 J. P. CENTENO

8

OPERATIONAL INNOVATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES …

217

Table 8.4 Top 10 other STI actors of the operational policy network within the royalties fund for STI in Colombia 2012–2018 (sorted by degree centrality) No

Organization

Betweenness centrality

Degree centrality

Closeness centrality

1

Instituto Amazónico de Investigaciones Científicas Conservatorio del Tolima Corporación Ruta N Medellín Fondo Financiero Distrital de Salud Instituto para la Investigación y la Preservación del Patrimonio Cultural y Natural del Valle del Cauca INCIVA Jardín Botánico José Celestino Mutis Centros de Estudios Interdisciplinarios Básicos y Aplicados Ceiba Biblioteca Departamental Jorge Garcés Borrero Fideicomiso Fondo Francisco José de Caldas—Colciencias Instituto Financiero para el Desarrollo del Valle del CaucaINFIVALLE

0

56

1

0

27

1

156,083,333

25

0,302,603

0

15

1

0

11

1

0

10

1

0

7

0

0

6

1

0

5

0

0

4

0,833,333

2 3 4 5

6 7

8

9

10

Source Monitoring of the royalties general system database

second layer is a peripherical one, composed mainly by other STI actors and non-STI actors that support innovation by mediating between their source of knowledge and their clients.

218

J. P. CENTENO

Table 8.5 Top 10 non-STI actors of the operational policy network within the royalties fund for STI in Colombia 2012–2018 (sorted by degree centrality) No

Organization

Betweenness centrality

Degree centrality

Closeness centrality

1 2

Analytica S.A Lanzetta Rengifo y Cia S A S Biodiagnostica Ltda A & M Asesoría Y Mantenimiento Ltda Avantika Colombia S.A.S Blamis Dotaciones Laboratorio S.A.S Andina de Tecnologias S.A.S G&G Sucesores S.A.S Kaika S.A.S Equipos y Laboratorio de Colombia S.A.S

0 0

8 8

0 0

0

7

0

0

7

0

0

7

0

0

7

0

0

7

0

0

6

0

0 0

6 6

0 0

3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10

Source Monitoring of the royalties general system database

Regarding the public administration organizations that operate within the policy network, we see that Corpoica 10 has the most ties (130) followed by the subnational governments of Risaralda, Cundinamarca, Antioquia, Atlántico, Quindío, Cauca, Vichada, Nariño and Sucre (see Table 8.6). These organizations are typically the executors of the projects, so their high degree can be interpreted as a high number of contracts they subscribed in order to fulfill the needs of the implementation process of the projects. They do not have an intermediation role except for the subnational government of Cauca, which has a betweenness centrality of 419,5. Finally, examining the strength of the relationships gives us some insights into the role of the different actors that compose the network.

10 Today known as Agrosavia.

8

OPERATIONAL INNOVATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES …

219

Table 8.6 Top 10 public administration organizations of the operational policy network within the royalties fund for STI in Colombia 2012–2018 (sorted by degree centrality) No

Organization

Betweenness centrality

Degree centrality

Closeness centrality

1

Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria Corpoica Departamento de Risaralda Departamento de Cundinamarca Departamento de Antioquia Departamento del Atlántico Departamento del Quindío Departamento del Cauca Departamento del Vichada Departamento de Nariño Departamento de Sucre

0

130

0,318,942

0

64

0,345,548

0

29

0,295,686

0

25

0,303,261

0

24

1

0

22

0,328,999

419,5

21

0,326,148

0

18

0,236,328

0

17

0,286,951

0

14

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Source Monitoring of the royalties general system database

This strength is measured in social network analysis in terms of weight for each edge and, for this particular case, the number of connections of two particular nodes, i.e., the number of times that two particular nodes signed a contract, as well as the amount of financial resources established in each contract, are indicators of the weight for each connection/edge/contract. Regarding the number of connections, Corpoica stands out for contracting many times with a few organizations, mainly transportation firms. Corpoica is a public research institute that works on agriculture with an overall incidence in rural areas of the country, so it demands a high volume of transportation services for researchers and public officials to make a presence in rural areas where projects are being executed. As

220

J. P. CENTENO

Table 8.7 shows, Corpoica has subscribed 181, 149 and 86 contracts with 3 transportation firms. These firms do not have a high degree of centrality (Table 8.5) because they are only connected to Corpoica; nevertheless, the weight of their connection to Corpoica suggests that they have a relevant role in providing necessary logistic services for STI practice. An interesting feature in Table 8.7 is that Universidad de Caldas and Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira appear both as executors and contractors in the same edge. This is mainly because of scholarships for masters and PhD students which require transactions and administrative interactions between different academic units inside the university. Furthermore, the amount of financial resources established in each contract also gives an insight into how relevant the connections are into the operational policy network and, therefore, on how important contracted actors are. However, a higher amount of financial resources does not necessarily imply a better contribution to STI practice work and, for this specific case, contracts with a high amount of financial resources have been involved in corruption scandals. This is the case Table 8.7 Top 5 edges with the highest weight, measured on the number of connections between two nodes No

1

2

3

4

5

Executor

Contractor

Weight

Type of organization

Organization

Type of organization

Organization

Public administration office Public administration office Higher education organizations Public administration office Higher education organizations

Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria—Corpoica Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria—Corpoica Universidad de Caldas

Non-STI actor

Transportes Piedecuesta S.A Grupo Empresarial MP S.A.S Universidad de Caldas

181

Transportes Especializados Jr S.A.S Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira

86

Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria—Corpoica Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira

Non-STI actor Higher education organizations Non-STI actor Higher education organizations

Source Monitoring of the royalties general system database

149

118

85

8

OPERATIONAL INNOVATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES …

221

Table 8.8 Top 5 edges with the highest weight, measured on the amount of resources established in each contract between two nodes No Executor

1

2

3

4

5

Contractor

Type of organization

Organization

Type of organization

Organization

Contract resources amount

Public administration office Public administration office Public administration office Other STI actors

Departamento del Cesar

Non-STI actor

Unión Temporal Arenk

$ 50.893.766.911

Departamento de Córdoba

Other STI actors

Corporación Áreas Naturales Protegidas Departamento Higher Universidad de education Nacional de Cundinamarca organizations Colombia Corporación Higher Universidad de Ruta N education Antioquia Medellín organizations Public Departamento Other STI Centros de administration de Bolívar actors Estudios office Interdisciplinarios Básicos y Aplicados—Ceiba

$ 47.561.015.997 $ 43.031.336.439 $ 40.459.209.112 $ 36.370.648.388

Source Monitoring of the royalties general system database

of Unión Temporal Arenk,11 the non-STI organization involved in the higher amount of financial resources in a contract involving building infrastructure for agricultural STI capacities. Also, the subnational government of Departamento de Córdoba was involved in a massive corruption scandal in a research project on the Caribbean agro-ecological belt, with Corporación Áreas Naturales Protegidas as a contractor.12 The other three edges showed in Table 8.8 involve a high amount of financial resources invested in STI projects aimed at different sectors such as agriculture, health and education. The amount of financial resources established in

11 See El Pilón news: https://elpilon.com.co/aplican-sanciones-incumplimiento-contra tistas-obras/. 12 See Contraloría General de la Nación briefs: https://www.contraloria.gov.co/con traloria/sala-de-prensa/boletines-de-prensa/boletines-de-prensa-2019/-/asset_publisher/ 9IOzepbPkrRW/content/contraloria-investiga-a-gobernadora-e-de-cordoba-y-exgoberna dores-lyons-y-besaile-por-hallazgo-fiscal-de-45-083-millones-en-proyecto-de-ciencia-y-tecn.

222

J. P. CENTENO

five contracts in Table 8.8 represent the 13% of all the financial resources involved in the network. In sum, the amount of financial resources contracted does not seem to be a relevant proxy of the prominence of non-STI actors as hard/soft intermediaries within the network. Furthermore, for this particular case, they are characterized by a broad presence in the network and various connections, rather than a high level of financial resources executed or a high number of connections with one single node. The next section discusses the above presented results and presents some final remarks.

8.5

Discussion and Final Remarks

This chapter builds on the intersection of functions of innovation systems, policy instruments and policy networks approaches, in order to analyze an operational policy network shaped by a particular policy instrument in Colombia: the royalties fund for STI from 2012 to 2018. Innovation policy instruments are a relevant component of innovation governance (Kuhlmann et al., 2010) and a particular institutional arrangement that shapes the interactions of the organizations that operate around it (Edler et al., 2016; Scharpf, 1978). The contractual/legal nature of the connections and the predominance of central actors such as universities and subnational governments suggest that this case resembles a steered network which tends to present a hierarchical governance structure (Assens & Lemeur, 2016). The chapter posed the following research and policy-related questions, respectively: (1) what type of actors are the most important within the network of actors that participated in the implementation of STI projects funded with royalties between 2012 and 2018? And (2) What is the role of non-STI actors within an operational policy network? Regarding the first one, it is found that contrary to the main argument that led to the reform of the royalties fund for STI (i.e., that non-expert subnational governments had a central role in implementing STI), the results show that actually, STI actors like universities were the most influent at the operational level given their connection to the rest of the organizations that participated in the mechanism. These universities even have the potential of systemic intermediaries (van Lente et al., 2003) since they are the ones that keep the network together through intermediation.

8

OPERATIONAL INNOVATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES …

223

In respect to the second question, non-STI actors are usually connected to the network by one single tie, which is a characteristic of their role as hard and soft intermediaries (van Lente et al., 2003) that are important in resources mobilization (Hekkert et al., 2007) which is in turn practice work to sustain the particular practice field of STI policy at the operational level (Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010). This practice work therefore consists in mediating between their own source of knowledge and their clients in providing know-how, human resources, technical services and management support. 8.5.1

Discussion: Toward an Operational Innovation Policy Network Approach

In this section, the results presented above are discussed, and the analyzed operational policy network is compared with a broader innovation policy network examined by Orozco and colleagues (2015, 2019). I compare them regarding different aspects which are summed up in Table 8.9, namely: source, level, scope, type of actors involved, the interactions between the actors in the network and the governance dancing partners that drive the interactions. Table 8.9 Policy networks & operational policy networks features Policy networks

Operational policy networks

Shaped by (source) Level Scope Variety of actors Type of actors

Public policy and programs Strategic Broad Little diversity High level councils, ministries, public agencies, policy makers, large scale corporations

Main interactions

Policy design and implementation; program execution; knowledge production

Driving Dancing partners

Theory and policy

Policy instrument Operational Narrow High diversity Universities, R&D firms, SMEs, support / supply firms, civil society organizations, local entrepreneurs Project execution; procurement; knowledge, goods and services supply; resources mobilization Practice

224

J. P. CENTENO

Orozco and colleagues (2015, 2019) analyze the network composed by all those public agencies that invested in designing and implementing innovation programs from 2010 to 2014. Here, the source is national public programs with a broad scope implemented at the strategic/national level. The authors find a network that is composed of at least 17 public organizations that operate at the macro national level around 38 connections, characterized by a low density (0,13), a hierarchical structure and centralized by a few actors. The actors here are high-level national agencies that participate in innovation policy design and implementation: Colciencias, the National Planning Department and other ministries are some of them. Given their role in policy design and implementation, the main driving dancing partners they are involved with regarding governance are innovation theory and policy, since they are the ones that define the general orientations for innovation policy and programs at the macro national level (Kuhlmann et al., 2010). In contrast, this chapter shows an operational policy network with diverse and abundant actors (1648), including local research organizations, regional public universities, SMEs and other STI and non-STI actors. They operate at the operational (micro) level around a policy instrument rather than a broad strategic public policy itself. Here, public administration offices—e.g., subnational governments—have a less relevant role, and public universities are the most influential given their connection to the rest of the actors within the network, their intermediation role, and their potential as systemic intermediaries. The density of this type of network is even lower than that of the national policy network (0,001), this can be explained by the high number of organizations, mainly non-STI actors that operate as resource providers, which are connected to the network by one single tie in average (1,5). The main innovation governance driving dancing partner for them is practice, since their role is rather operational and they do not participate in defining broader policy goals or strategic orientations, but in operationalizing a particular policy instrument. As said above, both networks have a low density. In the case of the national policy network, Orozco, et al. (2015) argue that the low density is a symptom of a “inter-agency cooperation model that have not achieved intersectoral coordination in the macro level” (p. 239). In addition to that, the operational policy network has numerous nodes that are connected to the network by one single tie. In other words, the incapacity

8

OPERATIONAL INNOVATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES …

225

to achieve a sustained coordination in the structural level, and the nature of the operational network, results in a low-density set of interactions. To sum up, the operational policy network analyzed here is different from a broader strategic policy network in its source, level, scope, type of actors involved, the interactions between the actors in the network and the governance dancing partners that drive the interactions (Kuhlmann et al., 2010) (see Table 8.9). On the one hand, innovation policy networks are shaped by broad national public policies and programs implemented at the strategic level. They involve a few actors that participate in the decision-making process, mainly public agencies from the national level like high-level councils, ministries, public agencies, policy makers, large-scale corporations, etc. The interaction that takes place between this actors is related to policy design and implementation, program execution and knowledge production. Therefore, the main systemic functions deployed are typically knowledge development and diffusion, influence on the direction of search, market formation and legitimation. To sum up, the main driving dancing partners here are innovation theory and policy, shaping the interactions within the network. On the other hand, operational policy networks emerge out of narrow policy instruments implemented at the micro or operational level, with the participation of a high diversity of actors that fulfill systemic functions like entrepreneurial experimentation, development of positive external economies, resource mobilization. These actors are mainly regional public universities, R&D firms, SMEs, support / supply firms, civil society organizations and local entrepreneurs. Their interactions are mainly practicebased: project execution, procurement, knowledge, goods and services supply and resources mobilization. 8.5.2

Concluding Remarks: Innovation Policy Instruments and Networks for Inclusive Development

For the case of Colombia, one challenge that arises is the need of systemic innovation policy instruments, rather than only the traditional ones that correspond to a linear approach on innovation policy (Centeno, 2019). Systemic instruments are those that focus on the whole innovation system level rather than on a single part of it and contribute to the management of interfaces; building and organizing (innovation) systems; providing a platform for learning and experimenting; providing an infrastructure for

226

J. P. CENTENO

strategic intelligence and stimulating demand articulation, strategy and vision development (Smits & Kuhlmann, 2004; Wieczorek & Hekkert, 2012). This kind of instruments complement rather than replace traditional ones: they “often contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency and/or reshaping of the old instruments” (Smits et al., 2010, p. 432). There is further empirical evidence needed on innovation policy instruments, deployed by both State and non-State actors. This means broadening the scope of innovation policy instruments analysis by approaching them from a governance instruments perspective (Borrás & Edler, 2014). Future lines of research must address in depth the issue of what practices distinguish the role of systemic intermediaries within operational policy networks, and what type of intermediation takes place within this sort of network (van Lente et al., 2003). Also, further research is needed on the specific role of non-STI actors, distinguishing the type of actors, functions and services that could be found within this broad category. Furthermore, the extent to which these actors impact STI policy implementation remains a relevant question for measurement. This chapter looked deeper into policy networks to analyze the role of the understudied diversity of actors involved in innovation policy implementation in the meso and micro level in Colombia. Future research must go beyond the structural approaches and look closer in the dynamics of operational networks to identify the kind of interactions within them. Innovation policy does not occur in the vacuum: it is developed through a series, or interactions and mediation of—sometimes—non-visible actors that make it possible for others to produce knowledge and diffuse innovation, and their performance depends on the operational functioning of a set of institutions and organizations (Smith, 2010, p. 89). This research provides relevant insights for discussing innovation governance at the regional level in Colombia. Innovation policy instruments represent a relevant component of innovation governance: they are the result of the interactive learning process between actors regarding innovation practice, policy and theory (Kuhlmann et al., 2010), that could eventually lead to the sociotechnical transformation needed in order to address grand challenges (Borrás & Edler, 2014; Kern et al., 2019; Schot & Steinmueller, 2018). In emerging economies such as Colombia, the lack of local capacities to design, implement and evaluate innovation policy instruments often appears as a governance failure that makes it difficult for policy to be

8

OPERATIONAL INNOVATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES …

227

the leading dancing partner to make a successful orientation of innovation practice and theory (Kuhlmann & Ordóñez-Matamoros, 2017; Salazar, 2017 Orozco et al., 2007). Furthermore, these regional gaps often contribute to deepen social inequality and hinder local development. Broader governance instruments to address market, systemic and transformational failures are needed (Borrás & Edler, 2014; Weber & Rohracher, 2012), particularly in the context of Latin-American countries—and specially in Colombia—where there are still major societal and environmental challenges to cope for inclusive development (Dutrénit & Sutz, 2014). Addressing the role of actors that interact around particular policy instruments might be helpful to understand the implications of certain governance arrangements. This is particularly important when considering that innovation policies and instruments aimed at social inclusion have to take into account the role of distinctive actors at different levels, in order to foster collaboration and coordination. Acknowledgements This research benefited from the comments and observations made by colleagues of the academic community in two forums: first, the International Conference on Governance of Science and Innovation. Toward inclusive development, held in Bogotá, Colombia (July-August, 2019). And second, the 8th Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA (October, 2019). This research received funds from Universidad Externado de Colombia in order to be presented at the latter forum.

References Assens, C., & Lemeur, A. C. (2016). Networks governance, partnership management and coalitions federation. Palgrave Macmillan. Balanzó Guzmán, A., Centeno, J. P., Pinzón Rojas, C. M., & Rojas Jiménez, H. H. (2021). Is bioeconomic potential shared? An assessment of policy expectations at the regional level in Colombia. Innovation and Development ‚ 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2021.1956713. 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. https://www.diva-por tal.org/smash/get/diva2:267496/FULLTEXT01.pdf Borrás, S., & Edler, J. (2014). The governance of change in socio-technical and innovation systems: Three pillars for a conceptual framework. In S. Borrás &

228

J. P. CENTENO

J. Edler (Eds.), The governance of socio-technical systems. Explaining change (pp. 23–48). Edward Elgar. Bortagaray, I., & Gras, N. (2014). Science, technology, and innovation policies for inclusive development: Shifting trends in South America. In G. Crespi & G. Dutrénit (Eds.), Science, technology and innovation policies for development. The Latin American experience (pp. 255–285). Springer. Bressers, H., & O’Toole, L., Jr. (1998). The Selection of policy instruments: A network-based perspective. Journal of Public Policy, 18(3), 213–239. Carlsson, B., & Jacobsson, S. (1997). In search of useful public policies— Key lessons and issues for policy makers. In B. Carlsson (Ed.), Technological systems and industrial dynamics. Economics of science, technology and innovation (pp. 299–315). Springer. Centeno, J. P. (2019). La “territorialización” de la ciencia: una reflexión crítica de los seis años de funcionamiento del Fondo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación, del Sistema General de Regalías. In C. Soto (Ed.), Seguimiento y análisis de políticas públicas en Colombia. 2018, 89– 113. https://publicaciones.uexternado.edu.co/pageflip/acceso-abierto/pdf/ seguimiento-y-analisis-de-politicas-publicas-en-colombia-uext.pdf Chaminade, C., & Edquist, C. (2010). Rationales for public policy intervention in the innovation process: Systems of innovation approach. In R. Smits, S. Kuhlmann & P. Shapira (Eds.), The theory and practice of innovation policy: an international research handbook (pp. 95–114). Edward Elgar. Chaminade, C., Lundvall, B.-Å., Vang, J., & Joseph, K. J. (2009). Designing innovation policies for development: Towards a systemic experimentationbased approach. In B.-Å. Lundvall, K. J. Joseph, C. Chaminade & J. Vang (Eds.), Handbook of innovation systems and developing countries. Building domestic capabilities in a global setting (pp. 360–387). Edward Elgar. Cotte Poveda, A., Andrade Parra, J., & Pardo Martínez, C. I. (2019). Applying a new methodology to measure investment in R&D and science and technology activities: The case of Colombia. In C. I. Pardo Martínez, A. Cotte Poveda & S. P. Fletscher Moreno (Eds.), Analysis of science, technology, and innovation in emerging economies (pp. 21–35). Palgrave Macmillan. Crespi, G., & Dutrénit, G. (Eds.). (2014). Science, technology and innovation policies for development. The Latin American experience. Springer. Cunningham, P., & Ramlogan, R. (2016). Chapter 9: The impact of innovation networks. In A. G. Jakob Edler, & P. Shapira (Eds.), Handbook of innovation policy impact (pp. 279–317). Edward Elgar. De Oliveira Monteiro, S. P., & Carayannis, E. G. (Eds.). (2017). The quadruple innovation Helix Nexus. A smart growth model, quantitative Empirical validation and operationalization for OECD countries. Palgrave Macmillan. Departamento Nacional de Planeación. (2019). Evaluación de resultados a inversiones del SGR. Sector Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. Dirección de

8

OPERATIONAL INNOVATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES …

229

Vigilancia de las Regalías. Sistema de Monitoreo, Seguimiento, Control y Evaluación. https://www.sgr.gov.co/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=-fB6JlpktIE% 3d&tabid=438 Dutrénit, G., & Sutz, J. (Eds.). (2014). National innovation systems, social inclusion and development. The Latin American experience. Edward Elgar. Edler, J. (2010). Demand-Based Innovation Policy. In R. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, & P. Shapira (Eds.), The theory and practice of innovation policy: An international research handbook (pp. 275–301). Edward Elgar Publishing. Edler, J., & Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: What, why, and how. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 2–23. Edler, J., Cunningham, P., Gök, A., & Shapira, P. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of innovation policy impact. Edward Elgar. Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of innovation. Technologies, institutions and organizations. Pinter. Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: Rationales, lessons and challenges. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(2), 497–512. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. Frances Printer Publishers. Hekkert, M., Suurs, R., Negro, S., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(4), 413–432. Hjern, B., & Porter, D. (1981). Implementation structures: A new unit of administrative analysis. Organisational Studies, 3, 211–237. Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., & Woo, J. J. (2018). Chapter 9: Thirty years of research on policy instruments. In H. Colebatch & R. Hoppe (Eds.), Handbook on policy, process and governing (pp. 147–168). Edward Elgar. Johnson, A. (2001). Functions in innovation system approaches. Paper for DRUID’s Nelson-Winter Conference. Aalborg. Kern, F., Rogge, K., & Howlett, M. (2019). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies. Research Policy, 40(10), 1–15. Kickert, W., Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. (1997). Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector. Sage. Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. (2000). Public management and policy networks. Foundations of a network approach to governance. Public Management: An International Journal of Research and Theory, 2(2), 135–158. Klijn, E.-H., Koppenjan, J., & Termeer, K. (1995). Managing networks in the public sector: A theoretical study of management strategies in policy networks. Public Administration, 73, 437–454. Kuhlmann, S. (2001). Future governance of innovation policy in Europe: Three scenarios. Research Policy, 30, 953–976.

230

J. P. CENTENO

Kuhlmann, S., & Edler, J. (2003). Scenarios of technology and innovation policies in Europe: Investigating future governance. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 70, 619–637. Kuhlmann, S., & Ordóñez-Matamoros, G. (Eds.). (2017). Research handbook on innovation governance for emerging economies. Edward Elgar. Kuhlmann, S., & Rip, A. (2018). Next-generation innovation policy and grand challenges. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 448–454. Kuhlmann, S., Shapira, P., & Smits, R. (2010). Introduction. A systemic perspective: The innovation policy dance. In R. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, & P. Shapira (Eds.), The theory and practice of innovation policy: An international research handbook (pp. 1–22). Edward Elgar. Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2007). Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments—From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 20(1), 1–21. Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2016). Instrumento. In L. Boussaguet, S. Jacquot, P. Ravinet, J. I. Cuervo, J.-F. Jolly & D. Soto Uribe (Eds.), Diccionario de Políticas Públicas (A. C. González, J.-F. Jolly, V. Herrán Ocampo, D. Soto Uribe, C. Soto, C. Isaza …. J. Ayarza, Trans., 2nd ed., pp. 342–350). Universidad Externado de Colombia. Lundvall, B. -Å. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter. Nelson, R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford University Press. Orozco, L. A., Cancino, R., García, M., Moreno, G., Petit-Breuilh, J., Goñi, J., & Ordóñez-Matamoros, G. (2015). Redes de política y gobernanza de los Sistemas Nacionales de Innovación: una comparación entre Chile y Colombia. In Mirada iberoamericana a las políticas de ciencia, tecnología e innovación: perspectivas comparadas (pp. 221–258). CLACSO and CYTED. Orozco, L. A., Villaveces, J. L., Ordoñez-Matamoros, G., & Moreno, G. (2019). Innovation policy and governance networks on national innovation systems. In G. Catalano, C. Daraio, M. Gregory, H. Moed & G. Ruocco (Eds.), 17th International Conference on Scientometrics & Informetrics, ISSI 2019—Proceedings (Vol 1, pp. 541–553). Sapienza University. Available at http://www.issi-society.org/publications/issi-conference-procee dings/proceedings-of-issi-2019/. Orozco, L. A., Chavarro-Bohórquez, D. A., Olaya, D. L., & Villaveces, J. L. (2007). Methodology for measuring the socio-economic impacts of biotechnology: a case study of potatoes in Colombia. Research Evaluation, 16(2), 107–122. Pantoja, L. M., & Moreno, L. G. (2018). Evolución de la red de política para la innovación en Colombia: El fenómeno emergente de conformación de

8

OPERATIONAL INNOVATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES …

231

redes de gobernanza mediante el análisis de redes sociales (Twitter). Praxis Sociológica, 23, 65–87. Pyka, A. (2002). Innovation networks in economics: From the incentivebased to the knowledge-based approaches. European Journal of Innovation Management, 5(3), 152–163. Raab, J., & Kenis, P. (2007). Taking stock of policy networks: Do they matter? In F. Fischer, G. Miller & M. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis. Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 187–200). CRC Press. Taylor & Francis Group. Rhodes, R. (2006). Policy network analysis. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. Goodin (Eds.), The oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 425–447). Oxford University Press. Rosemberg, N. (1982). Inside the black box: Technology and economics. Cambridge University Press. Sabatier, P. (1993). Policy change over a decade or more. In P. Sabatier & H. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach (pp. 13–39). Westview Press. Salamon, L. (1981). Rethinking public management: Third-party government and the changing forms of government action. Public Policy, 29, 255–275. Salamon, L. (2002). The new governance and the tools of public action: An introduction. In L. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp. 1–47). Oxford University Press. Salazar, M. (2017). The Colombian system of science, technology and innovation in transition: How governance is being affected. In S. Kuhlmann & G. Ordóñez-Matamoros (Eds.), Research handbook on innovation governance for emerging economies. Towards better models (pp. 232–264). Edward Elgar. Salazar, M., Lozano-Borda, M., & Lucio-Arias, D. (2014). Science, technology and innovation for inclusive development in Colombia: Pilot programmes developed by Colciencias. In G. Dutrénit & J. Sutz (Eds.), National innovation systems, social inclusion and development. The Latin American experience (pp. 133–168). Edward Elgar. Scharpf, F. W. (1978). Interorganizational policy studies: Issues, concepts and perspectives. In K. Hanf & F. W. Scharpf (Eds.), Interorganizational policy making: Limits to coordination and central control (pp. 345–370). Sage. Schot, J., & Steinmueller, E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47 (9), 1554–1567. Smith, K. (2010). Globalisation and innovation systems: Policy issues. In R. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, & P. Shapira (Eds.), The theory and practice of innovation policy: An international research handbook (pp. 75–91). Edward Elgar. Smits, R., & Kuhlmann, S. (2004). The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1(2), 4±32.

232

J. P. CENTENO

Smits, R., Kuhlmann, S., & Teubal, M. (2010). A system-evolutionary approach for innovation policy. In R. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, & P. Shapira (Eds.), The theory and practice of innovation policy: An international research handbook (pp. 417–448). Edward Elgar. van Lente, H., Hekkert, M., Smits, R., & van Waveren, B. (2003). Roles of systemic intermediaries in transition processes. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7 (3), 247–279. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978051 1815478. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (2013). Análisis de redes. Métodos y aplicaciones. Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas. Weber, M., & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change. Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research Policy, 41, 1037–1047. Weber, M., & Truffer, B. (2017). Moving innovation systems research to the next level: Towards an integrative agenda. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 101–121. Wieczorek, A., & Hekkert, M. (2012). Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars. Science and Public Policy, 39, 74–87. Woolthuis, R. K., Lankhuizen, M., & Gilsing, V. (2005). A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation, 25, 609–619. Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. (2010). Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(2), 189–221.

CHAPTER 9

Regional Diversification, Technological Trajectories and Policy Approaches. The Case of Argentina’s Satellite Industry

Eliana Ángela Fernández

9.1

Introduction

The case study presented here is based on the complex of knowledgeintensive firms and institutions related to Argentina’s space sector, particularly those articulated around a state-owned enterprise called INVAP S.E, situated in the city of Bariloche1 This territorial delimitation has been motivated by the fact that San Carlos de Bariloche brings together outstanding technological capabilities at the national level and is the location of the knowledge-intensive firm INVAP S.E., which has the potential of promoting a significant development of suppliers (Kozulj et al., 2005; 1 This city is situated in the south of the province of Río Negro, Argentina.

E. Á. Fernández (B) Centro de Estudios Urbanos Y Regionales CEUR-CONICET, Buenos Aires, Argentina © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Ordónez-Matamoros et al. (eds.), Policy and Governance of Science, Technology, and Innovation, Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80832-7_9

233

234

E. Á. FERNÁNDEZ

López et al., 2018) and that throughout its history has developed a marked path-dependent 40 years trajectory of diversification from nuclear technology to space, medical and ICTs complex products (Kozulj et al., 2005). At present, INVAP S.E. is the state’s prime contractor regarding the space program orchestrated by the Argentinian space agency, the National Space Activities Commission (CONAE), and it is the sole company in Latin America that has worked with the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for complete space projects. It is a stateowned enterprise, yet it operates as an unlisted private company ever since its inception. The firm has subsidiaries in Brazil and U.S., with branches in Australia, Egypt and Venezuela. Though the firm represents the main capability for satellite integration in the country, new private actors have emerged with relevant, innovative activity aiming at global markets for new satellite technologies over the last decade. According to several authors (Barbaroux, 2016; Dos Santos Paulino & Le Hir, 2016; Mazzucato & Robinson, 2016), the satellite industry is considered to be undergoing a process of transformation signed by the emergence of new commercial and technological opportunities, which has attracted significant amounts of private investment over the last ten years (Bryce Space & Technology, 2020). As a response, the major traditional players in the industry worldwide—both space agencies and prime contractors—are shifting their strategies in order to adapt and not lose ground in terms of innovative performance (Robinson & Mazzucato, 2019). Considering this global context, this paper seeks to investigate in what ways the space industry’s global dynamics guide the strategic orientations of the firms and institutions that shape the Argentinian space complex. In this regard, the questions that serve as the backbone of the research refer, in the first place, to how in the present state of emergence and consolidation of new technological paradigms, the diversification strategies of the local economic agents are reconfigured. Secondly, the overall aim is to reflect on the implications of these strategies in terms of technological policies. The methodological approach is based on an exploratory case study (Yin, 2003) in which the phenomena under study cannot be separated from their context. It relies on combining secondary bibliographical references and the qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews to industry’s business managers and key informants. These interviews were

9

REGIONAL DIVERSIFICATION, TECHNOLOGICAL TRAJECTORIES …

235

conducted in the context of a research project entitled “Multi-purpose technologies , knowledge-diffusion activities and regional development policies: the cases of biotechnology, ICTs and metal-mechanical industries in Argentina (P-UE 2017 –2022)”, which is underway at Centro de Estudios Urbanos y Regionales (CEUR-CONICET). The chapter is structured as follows: in the first section, some of the key conceptual contributions of evolutionary theory on economic geography are discussed; likewise, different taxonomies of technological policies are reviewed. The second section offers a characterization of some of the innovation dynamics that are intrinsic to the global space industry. The Argentinian case and the regional framework analyzed in this study are presented in the third and fourth sections, together with an interpretation of the governance of the industrial complex and the implications in terms of technological policies. Finally, the main conclusions and some considerations for further studies are outlined.

9.2 Regional Diversification and Technological Trajectories. Contributions from Evolutionary Economic Geography In a broad sense, the first academic works related to economic geography that address the geographical implications of creative destruction are dated in the eighties (Hall & Preston, 1988) and have been revisited in more recent works (Martin & Sunley, 2006, 2010; Simmie & Carpenter, 2007) to analyze how new development paths emerge over time. The notion of regional diversification adopted in this chapter relates to an approach based on the microeconomic dynamics underlying the processes of productive diversification (Boschma et al., 2006; Martin & Sunley, 2006; Neffke et al., 2011). In particular, this approach focuses on the diversification processes of new technologies (Rigby, 2015) and their relevance in the conformation of innovative regional clusters. From this perspective, there is a tendency in regional economies to move across technological trajectories that are deeply rooted in the territory, in which the processes of search and exploration are guided by existing capabilities and knowledge, as well as by well-established routines (Dosi, 1982; Essletzbichler & Rigby, 1997) in a path-dependent process (Martin & Sunley, 2006).

236

E. Á. FERNÁNDEZ

The concept of path dependence, initially introduced by David (1985) and Arthur (1988) to analyze technological trajectories, has later been extended by various authors (Castaldi & Dosi, 2006; Ottosson & Magnusson, 1997) to regain a historical perspective on the processes that shape such path of regional and technological development, thus generating self-reinforcing mechanisms and, potentially, lock-in processes. Following Martin and Sunley (2006), who put forward the need to consider the relationship between path dependence and novelty, we seek to explore how the destruction and the creation of new trajectories are permanently latent. In this sense, how activities related to new technological paradigms emerge becomes relevant; in particular, when these new paradigms are based on trajectories and capabilities that have been accumulated through patterns of industrial organization that are specific to previous economic and technological trajectories, as these can promote and/or exert resistance to the changes prompted by the new technologies. Retrieving the regional dimension is also relevant insofar as the more complex technologies and more difficult to imitate, together with the tacit knowledge built based on routines and interpersonal interaction, tend to be rooted in the region (Boschma et al., 2018). Several industries offer examples of regional innovation ecosystems where clusters emerge around capabilities already present in the region and are actively pursued by regional policies. Regarding the space sector, a key innovation policy issue involves building regional ecosystems of dedicated supply firms, R&D firms, academic institutes, and service providers to create critical mass around specific parts of the space value chain and contribute to jobs-creation and growth in the region. Historically, for both the U.S. and Europe, this dynamic has enabled some aerospace clusters to compete globally in both production and innovation (Mazzucato & Robinson, 2016). In Latin America, even though case studies focusing on the emerging aerospace industries are rather scarce, there are some works that depict a number of clusters linked to the aerospace industry in Mexico (BrownGrossman & Dominguez-Villalobos, 2013; Casalet et al., 2011; Vázquez & Bocanegra, 2018; Villavicencio et al., 2013), Brazil (Bernardes, 2000; Campolina Diniz & Razavi, 1999; Costa Filho, 2000; Dahlman &

9

REGIONAL DIVERSIFICATION, TECHNOLOGICAL TRAJECTORIES …

237

Frischtak, 1993) and Colombia2 (Bello Zapata, 2017; Bonilla Bohórquez et al., 2016; Suarez Palacios, 2018). To conclude this section, recent debates on industrial policy for industries such as aerospace indicate that mission-oriented policies constitute a framework that might guide the transition toward new technological paradigms (Mazzucato, 2014). In the literature, this type of policy is generally associated to the creation of new technological trajectories, mainly through mechanisms related to the emergence of the spin-off and/or the involvement of firms that expand previous technological capabilities. The following section offers a brief review of the conceptual origin of mission-oriented policies to account for the recent shift toward a new approach for innovation policies within the space sector.

9.3 A Review of Different Approaches to Technological Policy From an evolutionary perspective, Metcalfe and Georghiou (1997) distinguish technological policies according to their main purpose: those that aim at providing the right incentives and altering the innovation’s cost– benefit equation without modifying existing capabilities; and those that aim to generate more access to innovation opportunities upgrading the firm’s capabilities. The problem with this typology is that it is hard to come up with a policy of the first type that does not alter the existing technological capabilities. This has been pointed out by Lipsey and Carlaw (1998), who propose a taxonomy based on policy selectivity. These authors distinguish between horizontal and transversal policies, which support activities of different sectors and firms providing ‘public goods’ and vertical or selective, which focus on a specific sector or technology. A taxonomy that considers other elements besides selectivity is the one proposed originally by Henry Ergas (1987), who distinguishes between mission-oriented and diffusion-oriented policies. Diffusion-oriented policies aim to provide a wide set of capabilities and public goods to enhance but not direct technological change, especially the incremental one through collaborative research between public and private institutions. They are mainly horizontal policies aimed at institutional development in 2 Referring to the clusters located in Antioquia and Valle del Cauca, which have begun implementing aerospace technology through educational projects for the development of microsatellites.

238

E. Á. FERNÁNDEZ

a system of innovation approach (Cantner & Pyka, 2001; Ergas, 1987). Fagerberg and Edler (2017) find two main issues concerning this type of policy. First, the innovation system might evolve, reinforcing existing industries that set the technological agenda and direction of research and development. Secondly, this reduces the chance of radical changes in technological trajectories that might enable new development paths. Mission-oriented policies target specific technologies in line with state-defined goals (missions) involving different industries—typically aerospace, electronics and defense—and technologies deemed strategic. As opposed to diffusion-oriented policies, mission-oriented policies are associated with the enhancement of radical changes of technological trajectories due to the need to combine different knowledge bases and technologies and require different industries to be related in new ways. Several key factors affect the policy effectiveness: technical expertise, financial resources, adequate linkages between users and providers and generally, the right selection mechanisms in order to avoid missions to overextend in time or expand to areas where existing capabilities and institutional settings are inappropriate. One of the main indicators of the indirect effects of mission-oriented policies is the emergence of spin-offs through the diffusion of new knowledge and activities that originated within the mission. Since the 1980s, mission-oriented policies had been criticized (Chiang, 1991, 1992; Ergas, 1987), questioning whether they create enough spillovers that are beneficial for the rest of the economic structure. However, there has recently been a reassessment of this type of policy (Coenen et al., 2015; Foray et al., 2012; Karo & Lember, 2016; Lund Declaration, 2009; Mazzucato, 2014, 2018; Mowery, 2012; UNCTAD, 2017). The concept of mission has been extended to include programs oriented to solving ‘major social challenges’ that involve not just a few public agencies and big contracting firms but also a larger part of national economy. In this sense, authors like Mowery (2012) point out the need to acknowledge the radical difference between these new ‘grand challenges’ and the old missions represented by the Apollo and Manhattan projects— mainly the fact that Manhattan and Apollo projects were public programs undertaken to meet the needs of a single government ‘customer’, and their success did not depend on the widespread adoption by individuals and firms of a diverse array of technologies—and its implications for an accurate understanding of this new approach to technological policy.

9

REGIONAL DIVERSIFICATION, TECHNOLOGICAL TRAJECTORIES …

239

One way to summarize the differences between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ approach to mission-oriented policies can be found in the work of Mazzucato and Penna (2016), who propose the notions of type I and type II missions. Type I missions are characterized, among other features, by centralized control and financing, by involving a limited group of firms and clearly defined value chains, and by the selection of reduced groups of ex-ante experts for the decision-making process related to technological development. These missions are self-contained projects with little need of complementary policies, in which the dissemination of results outside the circle of participants is of minor importance or actively discouraged. Type II missions, by contrast, are characterized by decentralized control with a large number of agents involved in the financing and direction of technical change through various value chains and innovation ecosystems. Unlike type I missions, diffusion of results is a central policy goal and particular attention is paid to coherence with other complementary policy objectives (Mazzucato & Penna, 2016). Type II policies capitalize on bottom-up experimentation (common to diffusion-oriented policies), in order to encourage a decentralized and distributed innovation system. In the case of space, according to Robinson and Mazzucato (2019), this approach can help to define better, develop and operate publicly funded space infrastructures, encourage new types of partnerships with the private sector and promote new technologies and services that can help companies compete in global value chains, while still addressing the direction of innovation. This new approach to mission-oriented policies that emerged from outside the region has had recent reception in Latin America in the context of a broader discussion regarding the need to adopt a new perspective on innovation policy design in order to incorporate inclusiveness as a key issue for development (Alzugaray et al., 2013). There is a growing Latin-American body of work concerning the opportunities brought about by type II mission-oriented policy for tackling the ‘grand challenges’ of Latin-American development, such as case studies on Brazil (Mazzucato & Penna, 2016) and Colombia (Hernández, 2019) which envision mission-oriented policies as a systemic approach to innovation that might lead to development opportunities for Latin-American countries.

240

9.4

E. Á. FERNÁNDEZ

The Emergence of New Space Technologies in the Present Phase of the ITCs Paradigm

Our point of departure is the conceptualization of the information and communication technologies (ICTs) as a techno-economic paradigm (Perez, 2010). Due to its pervasive nature, the impact of ICTs is perceived in the forms of governance and learning opportunities within value chains. Likewise, this paradigm involves many enabling technologies that, based on the conformation of critical infrastructure and the consolidation of different technological trajectories, generate new business opportunities. At the same time, these enabling technologies have a significant impact on learning processes and on the possibilities of diversification among different industries. Considering the present phase of development of ICTs as a technoeconomic paradigm, satellite technologies represent enabling technologies insofar as they comprise one of the main infrastructures not just of the telecommunication sector and the services related to the provision of geo-positioning information and terrestrial imagery, but also of new segments of the market related the so-called Industry 4.0 (Mazzucato & Robinson, 2016, 2018; Robinson & Mazzucato, 2019). According to specialists in this sector, there is a growing expectation about the emergence of new downstream applications in the satellite value chain (see Fig. 9.1 below), especially considering the contrast between the significant growth of turnover levels in the segment of satellite services and the scarce dynamism of the manufacturing industry worldwide (SIA, 2018). As regards the telecommunication segment, satellite technologies are depicted as a privileged field when it comes to the possibilities of connection and ubiquity; this positions them as one of the enabling technologies within the infrastructures of digital communications. At present, ambitious new projects are being developed worldwide. These projects are focused on developing satellite bandwidth based on constellations of small satellites called ‘ubiquitous bandwidth systems’, which aim to provide services of telecommunications with global coverage (Dos Santos Paulino & Le Hir, 2016). Likewise, during the last decade, there has been a considerable growth of the number of projects for the development of new applications based on an infrastructure of satellites that combine the features of telecommunications and earth observation, to provide Internet of Things solutions (IoT), Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) and Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast services

9

REGIONAL DIVERSIFICATION, TECHNOLOGICAL TRAJECTORIES …

241

Fig. 9.1 Satellite industry’s value chain

(ADS-B), thus integrating techniques such as machine learning and Big Data. Concerning the segment of satellite imagery, both regulatory and technological changes have led to the exponential growth of applications in the downstream satellite value chain (SIA, 2018), where a convergence with the new information technologies has given rise to the creation of new markets (Bryce Space & Technology, 2017; Mazzucato & Robinson, 2018). These processes are expected to be concomitant with the development of the techno-economic ICT paradigm as they influence the increase of infrastructure, the amount and speed of data transmission and overall capacity for data processing. This emergence of new technologies occurs in a context in which the satellite industry, historically configured around military-industrial complexes, is going through a process in which new actors emerge, partly leveraged by finance capital; this poses challenges for space agencies aiming to stimulate local industry and to make it competitive in global markets. In this context, the so-called New Space approach has become relevant (see Fig. 9.2), as a way to explore segments associated with opportunities for technological innovation, either by space agencies or by the initiative of private actors. These opportunities within both upstream and downstream segments in the satellite value chain are based

242

E. Á. FERNÁNDEZ

‘Old space’ missions

‘New Space’ missions

Run by big corporations that perform as prime contractors of long term projects funded by state agencies and other institutions

Start-ups financed by venture capital and private funding (coming from large corporations such as Google, Apple, Facebook or Virgin Galactic)

Low rate of production and high cost per unit

Emergence of new business models (e.g. firms that are integrators and operators at the same time)

Focus on advanced technologies and high reliability Demand comes mainly from major space programs run by the space agencies and projects from telecom companies Integration and operation of satellites are two neatly differentiated markets

Temporary emergence of markets with relatively low barriers to entry (earth observation and downstream services) Potential for mass production of small satellites developed under a modular concept Distributed architecture: the possibility of replacing satellites reduces reliability requirements Markets focused on downstream processing and satellite imaging services

Fig. 9.2 Characteristics of the old and new space missions (Source Based on Robinson and Mazzucato (2019))

on a set of new technological trajectories that can be synthesized under the concept proposed by the European Space Agency (ESA) called ‘Space 4.0’ (Mazzucato & Robinson, 2016; Robinson & Mazzucato, 2019). One of the main drivers that led to the entry of new enterprises into the global space market is the diffusion of the so-called Distributed Satellites Systems (DSS) paradigm throughout the central space agencies and scientific communities linked to the industry worldwide (Corbin, 2015). Since the 1980s from diverse institutional spheres, there were new designs proposed for satellite systems based not on monolithic satellites but on multiple interacting satellites that cooperate and communicate, resulting in new systemic properties and emerging functionalities (ONION, 2016). These new properties were accompanied by growing complexity in terms of interphases, synchronization and network configuration compared with the traditional monolithic systems. Satellite constellations were the first successful DDS’s implementation. They aim to provide global and continuous coverage in real time. In this matter, they differentiate from other proposals (such as segmented systems, federal systems and clusters) focused on achieving greater flexibility and reliability.

9

REGIONAL DIVERSIFICATION, TECHNOLOGICAL TRAJECTORIES …

243

A key factor for the technical viability of this program is the trend toward miniaturization of electronic components and space systems, alongside developments in microelectronics that bring about new functionalities to small satellites compared to traditional satellites (Petroni & Santini, 2012). At the same time, this type of architecture is enabled by new launching technologies that promise to reduce launching costs. Accordingly to the emerging of new opportunities to enter markets through the adoption of new technologies, there has been a growing number of start-ups developing space systems mainly for earth observation and other commercial applications during the last decade. The emergence of this particular market has been made possible by recent changes in regulation,3 advances regarding hardware miniaturization, the growing use of commercial off-the-shelf components (COTS)4 in space systems and decreasing launching costs.

9.5 The Scientific-Technological Complex Related to Satellite Projects in Argentina Argentina’s space program is one of the oldest and most developed space programs in Latin America. Since the late 1990s, several countries in the region have developed national space programs (Mendelson Forman et al., 2009), and technical solid cooperation has been established amidst the interregional sphere. However, aside from Brazil, Mexico and Argentina, they have only developed educational or scientific missionsbased on experimental hardware (Guerrero Garcia, 2016). The technological learning process in the space sector in Argentina has led to a local process of accumulation of capabilities related to satellite technologies, particularly in different areas associated with microelectronics, signal processing and programming. Although the Argentinian case might be characterized as part of a scientific-technological complex (de Mendoza, 2010) whose consolidation as national industry is still in its

3 Regulatory changes in the last 25 years have been mainly triggered by a change in the DoD’s (US Department of Defence) public procurement policy for space missions and, especially concerning changes in the commercial satellite imagery resolution admitted by the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA). 4 There is a growing tendency in space systems manufacturing toward replacing expensive space-grade components for commercial components that had been proven apt for space through a series of testing techniques (Bryce Space and Technology, 2018).

244

E. Á. FERNÁNDEZ

early phase, at present, this is a case that has actors in all the levels of the satellite value chain, with different trajectories, capabilities and business models (López et al., 2018) (Fig. 9.3). The governance of the network at the national level is articulated mainly around state enterprises and companies. In the first place, the National Space Activities Commission (CONAE) plays a central role, as this is the public agency that is in charge of the conception, design and execution of the earth observation satellite missions and the ‘access to space’ projects that are carried out by the Argentinian state. Another entity that demands satellite systems is ARSAT, a state-owned enterprise dedicated to the operations of telecommunication satellites. The main contractor of CONAE and ARSAT is the state-owned firm INVAP, which is dedicated to the integration—the final phase—of satellite manufacturing. Within the segment of the manufacture of launchers, the main firm is VENG, another state-owned enterprise that belongs to CONAE and has been created to have a national supplier of lightweight launchers for its project on distributed satellite systems. The rest of the scientific and technological complex is made up by a wide spectrum of public R + D institutions, each with their own qualified human resources and different programs of associated academic training. Within the private actors related to the sector, there is a limited set of firms specialized in space sub-systems, generally spin-offs of INVAP,

The National space agency (CONAE) is created

INVAP is certified by NASA to supply space technologies

Arsat-1 is launched Project PITBA is signed

The National Atomic Energy Commission (CNEA) is established

1950

1960

CONAE's SAC-A satellite is launched

INVAP exports its first nuclear research reactor

Arsat-2 is launched

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

The firm VENG SA is established Instituto Balseiro is created

INVAP is established as a state-owned enterprise CONAE'S SAC-B satellite is launched

Satellogic SA is founded CONAE's SAC-D (developed in cooperation with NASA) is launched Arsat SA is established as an state-owned communication company

Fig. 9.3 Time line of the national space industry’s main milestones

9

REGIONAL DIVERSIFICATION, TECHNOLOGICAL TRAJECTORIES …

245

CONAE, or other research centers, and a more extensive set of companies partially related to the sector. Finally, the market prospects associated with the paradigm of distributed satellite systems (commonly referred to as ‘New Space’) have given rise to new actors partially financed by venture capitals that develop space technology exploiting several linkages with the local scientific and technological institutions. As of 2010, five space start-ups have been created; they are oriented to advanced technology market niches, such as services based on satellite constellations, manufacturing of launchers and space-qualified hardware. Within these firms, we find the case of Satellogic, an Argentinian startup that was founded in 2010. Its distinctive feature lies in the fact that it has become the first private supplier of satellite imagery in Latin America based on its own constellation of micro-satellites for earth observation. This constitutes a representative case of those Argentinian companies that are not in the manufacturing business, yet they are inserted in the value chain of ICT based on satellite imagery. Although Satellogic’s founders may not have gone through CONAE’s traditional training program for human resources, firms like this have developed critical capabilities connected with the scientific and technological institutions related to the sector. From a regional perspective, the core space-related capabilities in Argentina are situated in the city of San Carlos de Bariloche (province of Río Negro), in the province of Buenos Aires and in the province of Córdoba.5 Córdoba is characterized by having an industrial base linked with the nascent aviation industry in Argentina. The metropolitan area of Buenos Aires comprises several scientific-technological institutions and is the location of service companies based on satellite imagery and telecommunications. Finally, San Carlos de Bariloche has the most long-standing experience in the space sector at the national level and constitutes the main territorial axis of the ‘old’ satellite and nuclear missions of the Argentinian state due to the fact that the nuclear complex that gave rise to space activity in the country was based there on a rationale strongly associated with ‘type I’ mission-oriented policies (Thomas et al., 2008; Versino, 2006). 5 This territorial distribution is reflected in the location of the main testing and certification facilities related to the national satellite industry: CEATSA (Bariloche), CNEA-INTI (Buenos Aires), CONAE-CETT (Córdoba).

246

E. Á. FERNÁNDEZ

9.6

The Case of the Scientific-Technological Complex in San Carlos de Bariloche

The city of San Carlos de Bariloche, situated in the province of Río Negro, has a particular feature: it is the second province in Argentina with the highest number of scientists and technicians for every 1000 inhabitants, as it has an estimated rate of 2.8 researchers for every 1000 inhabitants as opposed to 1.19 at national level.6 The characteristics of its scientifictechnological complex explain this unique feature. Following Lugones and Lugones (2004), the first stage in the development of the scientific-technological capabilities that are the distinctive characteristic of the city is the settlement of R + D facilities—in particular Balseiro Institute—in the fifties for the instruction and training of nuclear physicists in the prestigious Bariloche Atomic Center (CAB). The setting up of state-owned firms (among them, INVAP) during the sixties based on the initiative of CAB technologists represents a second stage of development. This phase gave way to the first process of generation of new capabilities in knowledge-intensive areas such as nuclear energy, space technology, electronics and telecommunications. Afterward, a variety of firms originated as CAB-INVAP network spin-offs. These firms were devoted to the provision of equipment for alternative energies, intelligent tools for the oil and gas industry, components for the nuclear and space fields as well as information and communication technologies (ICTs). As regards the different attempts to institutionalize a scientifictechnological cluster in San Carlos de Bariloche, in 2004,7 there was an initiative to set up a conglomerate of different technological firms based on already existing companies in the region. The Complejo Patagónico de Alta Tecnología (COPAT) project consisted in establishing a physical space that belonged to the Bariloche Atomic Center. This project was intended to encourage the establishment of R + D divisions of existing companies, the incubation of technology-based firms and the development of prototypes that could be transferable to the industry in high-technology areas. To this end, it was expected that COPAT would be 6 Report ‘Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología. Argentina 2017 ’ published by Argentina’s Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. 7 The first project—that finally did not prosper—was the creation of Parque Tecnológico Bariloche (PTB) back in 1986, launched by Secretaría de Estado y Ciencia y Técnica de la Provincia de Río Negro.

9

REGIONAL DIVERSIFICATION, TECHNOLOGICAL TRAJECTORIES …

247

set up as a private enterprise, having the National Commission of Atomic Energy (CNEA) as its main shareholder. In order to encourage firms to settle down in the complex, it was expected that the firms would obtain substantial tax reductions, infrastructure for connectivity, a platform for the export of technology and a strategic association with financial agencies so that small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) could access credit (Lugones & Lugones, 2004). In 2015, provincial legislation was enacted to create the so-called San Carlos de Bariloche Productive, Technological and Industrial Park (PITBA) and promote the establishment of enterprises around a set of firms considered as industry drivers—among them, INVAP. So far, this project has not been completed and is still in the stage of calling for potential firms to join in. Among local enterprises, INVAP S.E. is considered the firm with the highest degree of visibility and institutional influence (Kozulj et al., 2005) and the leading enterprise in the Argentinian space sector from both national standpoints and international policy makers. Historically, this company has always been CONAE’s prime contractor. It was set up in 1976 in the context of the national nuclear program implementation to develop knowledge and technology for the creation of a nuclear complex in the country. The technological trajectory of INVAP refers to both the nuclear and the space sectors, and at present, it offers a wide range of technological products: nuclear research reactors, components for nuclear centers, earth observation satellites, satellite components, nuclear medicine equipment, lyophilization plants and telecommunication’s infrastructure, among many others. The accumulated capabilities in the production of complex products, especially nuclear reactors, were the key elements that paved the way for the initial cooperation with NASA during the nineties and this was the landmark that signals the conformation of CONAE back in 1991 (Versino & Russo, 2010). During this decade, the complementarity of knowledge bases related to nuclear and satellite technology, added to the process of sharing infrastructure requirements and organizational capabilities, allowed INVAP to avoid a technological lock-in when confronted with the dismantling of the Argentinian nuclear program. One of the particular features of INVAP has been the fact that its management embraced the challenging and motivating process of erratic development of technology which would generally scare away the Argentinian private sector. According to Seijo and Cantero (2012), this passion

248

E. Á. FERNÁNDEZ

for development, not so much the adherence to risk-avoidance criteria, is the key element in the process of diversification of INVAP. Another element of high significance is that being a state-owned organization, the firm’s management has been relieved from the pressure of shareholders to avoid the risks associated with new technological developments. Another relevant aspect to consider has been the autonomy of the main executives of INVAP, which often facilitated the process of launching and supporting initiatives independently from the decisions made by local scientific-technological policy makers (Versino, 2006). Likewise, the interlocking of the firm with state institutions and informal ties with relevant authorities and local business owners facilitated the flow of necessary information to identify the business opportunities for new technological developments. Despite the leading role of the INVAP’s executives in the planning of initiatives and technological policies, there is no evidence of association with other companies that might enable its consolidation as coordinator of the industrial complex, particularly in the space sector. According to Kozulj and Lugones (2007), this is a case of a weakly articulated network in which hierarchical and heterogeneous relationships predominate. To a large extent, this scarce agglomeration of space-related activities in Bariloche is closely related to the hierarchical connection that INVAP establishes with its suppliers (Kozulj et al., 2005) as it tends to integrate the activities of higher technological content vertically.

9.7

Some Challenges for a New Mission-Oriented Approach to Space Innovation in Argentina

Research on mission-oriented policy highlights the risks of missions becoming isolated compartments (Chesnais, 1990) that don’t derive into enough spillovers to the overall economy. The literature on type I missions indicates that regional diversification and new technology trajectories emerge rather than indirect and casual technological learning outcomes. In the Argentinian case, the limited spillovers regarding diversification and evolution of regional space capabilities are far from being considered the sole result of the mission-oriented policy. An illustrative case in this regard relates to INVAP’s capability-building history, which has relied mainly on the cognitive proximity of the technical challenges they have faced over time, a strong process of learning by doing and

9

REGIONAL DIVERSIFICATION, TECHNOLOGICAL TRAJECTORIES …

249

by switching from one industry to another, and the additional political influence their main executives have had over policy makers. This establishes a contrast with the diverse technological trajectories of the SME that supply space sub-systems and components, which show limited absorptive capacity regarding the knowledge created within the missions. Those differences regarding the generation of knowledge-based externalities among SMES relate to the innovation system’s features, namely the level of strategic systemic coordination between both public and private sectors (Geels, 2002, 2004, 2005; Mazzucato, 2014; Perez, 2001, 2010). The entry of new private actors inserted in international networks, who manage to appropriate part of the knowledge generated in the framework of the traditional space missions in Argentina, generates tensions regarding the formulation of policy to promote the industry, given the current institutional configuration. In response to those tensions, there seems to be a reconfiguration of the innovation policy approach toward the country’s incipient satellite industry. The present phase of the DSS paradigm in the field of satellite technology and the convergence with the new ICTs represent, from the perspective of the main institutional leaders of the sector, a turning point in the global space industry. This convergence implies new opportunities for knowledge-intensive firms to enter global markets both upstream and downstream in the satellite value chain. On the upstream side, the relative importance of this new paradigm has been primarily highlighted by CONAE when defining its long-term strategic orientation based on the concept of Segmented Architecture8 and has been the main concept behind most of its new projects. In this sense, the agency has designed and manufactured prototypes for a distributed satellite system for satellite imagery (the SARE mission) and a set of light weight launchers (series Vex and Tronador) aimed at getting the system in orbit. Originally proposed by the Department of Defense of USA during the eighties, the Segment Architecture scheme implies the modularization of the traditional monolithic satellite in constellations of satellites with different features that in their interrelationship provide the same—or new—global functionality as the monolithic satellite. This activates a decoupling of the functions of the satellite, which 8 The term ‘segmented architecture’ appears explicitly as CONAE’S strategic orientation in the institution’s space program starting from its second version called ‘Plan Espacial 2004–2015’. It is also present in the program’s forward updates.

250

E. Á. FERNÁNDEZ

enables the replacement of particular sub-systems without rendering the system inoperative. According to specialized literature (ONION, 2016), this would imply a significant increase in the system’s use value, starting from relatively low investment. From the standpoint of CONAE, the trends toward modularization and use of commercial components in space systems represent an opportunity for the development of suppliers specialized in sub-systems and electronic assemblies and components in Argentina, such as critical embedded systems for capital-intensive industries such as automotive, oil and gas, mining, nuclear, aviation, medical and specialized industrial equipment. When it comes to space-level standards, one of the main issues for local SME is to ensure a market big enough to compensate the amount of investment required to be able to certify the quality required for satellite missions. For this reason, the agency has been working over the years alongside a set of small national firms helping them to achieve high-level standards that enable them to enter different industries as an intermediate step toward achieving space-level standards. By providing assessment and testing facilities for standardization of firm’s products and services, CONAE adds a more horizontal, diffusion-oriented approach to its mission-oriented innovation policy. As research on other space agencies shows (Robinson & Mazzucato, 2019), a dynamic combination of horizontal and vertical policiesis posed as a an effective strategy to help national firms access the global space industry based on capability building over a set of key multi-purpose technologies. For manufacturing firms, one of the barriers to entering global markets relates to the high costs implied by the use of space-grade components and parts made by certified global manufacturers. Regarding this issue, CONAE has been working on qualification (meaning testing simulating space conditions) of commercial off the shelf components (COTS) so as to facilitate firms and research centers to develop space sub-systems for the agency’s segmented architecture project replacing some space-grade components for COTS that CONAE has proved to function properly in space conditions. CONAE has recently created a new Research, Development and Innovation Department (RDIA) that aims at developing a new strategy for the agency in the so-called New Space context. A long-term mission is underway based on the DSS paradigm and the enabling technologies needed for its implementation. Their new space systems aim to function as test-beds for new software and hardware, allowing research centers in the

9

REGIONAL DIVERSIFICATION, TECHNOLOGICAL TRAJECTORIES …

251

country and abroad to perform experiments using these systems once the space mission is completed. They aim at starting new alliances and cooperation agreements with both public and private sectors, thus creating a fertile environment for systemic innovation and strengthening linkages between academy and industry. Another representative case in this strategic orientation is the joint venture arranged in 2019 between INVAP and Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI)—controlled by Turkey’s armed forces and Ministry of Defense—for the manufacture of geostationary telecommunication satellites through the use of a scalable modular platform suitable for distributed architectures as, for example, constellations. According to the company executives, in the long term, the company aims at entering the world market for manufacturing of modular space systems and subsystems, which according to experts, has lower barriers to entry than the market for monolithic satellites and has potential of reducing costs by using different sorts of spin-in technologies such as commercial-off-theshelf (COTS) components in the assembly of space sub-systems. On the downstream side, CONAE, in a similar fashion to space agencies in other countries, is at present exploring new potential markets for the imagery obtained through earth observation satellites. Such is the case a series of two satellites called ‘Satélite Argentino de Observación con Microondas ’ (SAOCOM), developed by CONAE with INVAP as prime contractor and in cooperation with CNEA for the development of its main instrument, a Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). Even though SAOCOM was initially designed for the detection of hydrological emergencies, nowadays there seems to be a reorientation of the objectives of the mission after discovering potential applications which were not considered in its original formulation. Besides potential commercial applications, one of the main opportunities relies on the use of these satellites images to tackle societal challenges like flooding prevention and optimization of land use, alongside with associated public institutions. In this process, the national space agency is also associated with local software firms which develop applications based on new ICTs technologies and satellite imagery, helping them achieve space standards for software engineering (mostly ECSS) and access international contracts and partnerships. The emergence of private enterprises financed by venture capital has posed a set of challenges for the innovation policy orchestrated by the national space agency. One of them relates to the need to articulate this

252

E. Á. FERNÁNDEZ

limited transition toward private funding with a centralized administrative structure able to distribute risks and rewards between the state and the private sector (Robinson & Mazzucato, 2019) accordingly. Following this line, a new procurement approach might be needed in order to integrate private providers of imagery such as Satellogic into the public satellite imagery service provided until now by CONAE. Such an approach would need to face new forms of partnerships with the long-term purpose of creating a new ecosystem of public and private actors driven by missionoriented policies.

9.8

Conclusions

The transition from type I missions toward type II missions suggests a way of exploring potential coupling of existing scientific and technologic capabilities and facilitate intervention in the space value chain, not only upstream both also at the midstream and downstream levels. As suggested by Robinson and Mazzucato (2019), such a transition could be achieved through an active role of the national space agency in clarifying opportunities to give economic value to satellite images and deepen its role in the national innovation system. CONAE could then strategically coordinate public–private associations throughout the whole satellite value chain, including the so-called Space 4.0 downstream segments. This exploration phase is characteristic of the segment of earth observation (Bryce Space & Technology, 2017; Mazzucato & Robinson, 2018), as there are high levels of uncertainty regarding the potential markets and, in particular, the business models and associated institutional arrangements. The current redefinition of this policy approach suggests there is some potential for new missions to become an axis for the building of new technological trajectories and, in particular, for the definition of effective innovation policies able to guide the transition toward new technological paradigms. We consider that the case studied here reflects some of the tensions that emerged from this shift in the way institutional arrangements regarding the space sector’s innovation system are approached by policy makers worldwide. At a national level, the emergence of new players situated at the midstream level of the value chain raises additional tensions in the governance of the complex. In this sense, the strategies deployed by space firms and the spatial agency itself reflect some of the dynamics of the industry at a global level. In the future work, it would be relevant to assess whether

9

REGIONAL DIVERSIFICATION, TECHNOLOGICAL TRAJECTORIES …

253

these strategies downplay the relevance of geographical and institutional proximity in the emergence of innovative clusters related to the industry. Finally, although the difficulties observed in the consolidation of a dynamic technological cluster in the region are due to a multiplicity of factors, it is necessary to deepen research about the links between technological trajectories and diversification, as it may be an interesting axis of analysis to account for the possibilities of the constitution of an innovation ecosystem in the region. In this sense, future studies could fruitfully explore this issue further by analyzing regional diversification patterns as a background condition for the emergence of new technological trajectories.

References Alzugaray, S., Mederos, L., & Sutz, J. (2013). Investigación e innovación para la inclusión social: La trama de la teoría y de la política. Isegoría, 48, 25–50. Arthur, W. B. (1988). Self-reinforcing mechanisms in economics. In The economy as an evolving complex system (Vol. 5, pp. 9–31). Barbaroux, P. (2016). The metamorphosis of the world space economy: Investigating global trends and national differences among major space nations’ market structure. Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, 2(20), 9–35. Bello Zapata, A. F. (2017). Análisis de clústeres aeronáuticos referentes para el desarrollo del clúster aeroespacial colombiano. CIENCIA Y PODER AÉREO, 12, 36–58. Bernardes, R. (2000, September). O arranjo produtivo da EMBRAER na região de São José dos Campos. Seminario internacional Arranjos e Sistemas Produtivos Locais e as Novas Políticas de Desenvolvimento Industrial e Tecnológico, Rio de Janeiro. Bonilla Bohórquez, J. A., Ojeda Ramírez, O. I., Villagrán Cortes, L. J., Villamil Quintero, F. A., Zorro Mendoza, C. A., & Cañón Ayala, M. J. (2016). Colombia Aeroespacial 2026. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Boschma, R., Balland, P.-A., Crespo, J., & Rigby, D. L. (2018). Smart specialization policy in the European Union: Relatedness, knowledge complexity and regional diversification. Regional Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/003 43404.2018.1437900 Boschma, R., Coenen, L., Frenken, K., & Truffer, B. (2006). Towards a theory of regional diversification. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography, 16. Brown-Grossman, F., & Dominguez-Villalobos, L. (2013). Industria aeronáutica en México: Su experiencia en la cadena global de valor. XV Congresso de Gestão de Tecnologia Latino-Iberoamericano—ALTEC 2013, Porto.

254

E. Á. FERNÁNDEZ

Bryce Space and Technology. (2017). 2017 State of the Satellite Industry Report. Satellite Industry Association. Bryce Space and Technology. (2018). Start-up space 2018: Update on investment in commercial space ventures. Bryce Space and Technology. (2020). Start-up space: Update on investment in commercial space ventures. Campolina Diniz, C., & Razavi, M. (1999). São José dos Campos and Campinas. In A. Markusen, Y. S. Lee & y. S. DiGiovanna (Eds.), Second tier cities. University of Minnesota Press. Cantner, U., & Pyka, A. (2001). Classifying technology policy from an evolutionary perspective. Research Policy, 30(5), 759–775. Casalet, M., Buenrostro, E., Stezano, F., Oliver, R., & Abelanda, L. (2011). Evolución y complejidad en el desarrollo de encadenamientos productivos en México: Los desafíos de la construcción del cluster aeroespacial en Querétaro, México. CEPAL. Castaldi, C., & Dosi, G. (2006). The grip of history and the scope for novelty: Some results and open questions on path dependence in economic processes. In Understanding change (pp. 99–128). Palgrave Macmillan. Chesnais, F. (1990). Compétitivité internationale et dépenses militaires. Economica. Chiang, J.-T. (1991). From ‘mission-oriented’to ‘diffusion-oriented’ paradigm: The new trend of U.S. industrial technology policy. Technovation, 11(6), 339– 356. Chiang, J.-T. (1992). Technological spin-off its mechanisms and national contexts. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 41, 365–390. Coenen, L., Hansen, T., & Rekers, J. V. (2015). Innovation policy for grand challenges. An economic geography perspective. Geography Compass, 9, 483– 496. Corbin, B. A. (2015). The value proposition of distributed satellite systems for space science missions. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Costa Filho, E. de J. (2000). A politica cientifica e tecnologica no setor aeroespacial brasileiro: Da institucionalização das atividades ao fim da gestão militar— Uma analise do periodo 1961–1993 [Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Geociencias]. http://www.repositorio.unicamp.br/handle/REP OSIP/286730 Dahlman, C., & Frischtak, C. (1993). National systems supporting technical advance in industry: The Brazilian experience. In R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems. Oxford University Press. David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 332–337. de Mendoza, D. H. (2010). La ciencia argentina: Un proyecto inconcluso, 1930– 2000. Edhasa.

9

REGIONAL DIVERSIFICATION, TECHNOLOGICAL TRAJECTORIES …

255

Dos Santos Paulino, V., & Le Hir, G. (2016). Industry structure and disruptive innovations: The satellite industry. Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, 2(20), 37–60. Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11, 147–162. Ergas, H. (1987). Does technology policy matter? In B. Guile & H. Brooks (Eds.), Technology and global industry: Companies and nations in the world economy (pp. 191–280). Essletzbichler, J., & Rigby, D. L. (1997). Evolution, process variety, and regional trajectories of technological change in U.S. manufacturing. Economic Geography, 73, 269–284. Fagerberg, J., & Edler, J. (2017). Innovation policy: What, why, and how. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 2–23. Foray, D., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. (2012). Public R&D; and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D; programs? Research Policy, 41, 1697–1702. Geels, F. W. (2002). Understanding the dynamics of technological transitions: A co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis. Twente University Press. Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 897–920. Geels, F. W. (2005). Technological transitions and system innovations: A coevolutionary and socio-technical analysis. Edward Elgar. Guerrero Garcia, A. (2016). Complejidad y Políticas Públicas en el desarrollo del Sector Espacial como Sistema de Innovación: Casos de Argentina, Brasil y México. FLACSO. Hall, P. G., & Preston, P. (1988). Carrier wave: New information technology and the geography of innovation, 1846–2003. Routledge. Hernández, I. (2019). El enfoque de políticas de innovación orientadas por misión: Una aproximación al caso colombiano. BID. Karo, E., & Lember, V. (2016). Emergence of societal challenges-based innovation policies in market-based innovation systems: Lessons from Estonia. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 11(1–3), 126–147. Kozulj, R., Lugones, M., Garcia, M., & Reising, A. (2005). Estudio de la trama productiva Invap S.E. In Módulo A: Generación y uso de conocimiento científico Complejo Tecno-industrial Nuclear y Satelital. Sistema Nacional y Sistemas Locales de Innovación, Estrategias Innovativas Empresarias y Condicionantes Meso y Macroeconómicos. Bariloche: Subproyecto Fundación Bariloche PAV 57/2003 (IDEE 2005–16). Kozulj, R., & Lugones, M. (2007). INVAP y el desarrollo de una trama de base tecnológica: Evolución histórica y situación actual. In G. Yoguel, M. Delfini,

256

E. Á. FERNÁNDEZ

D. Dubbini, M. Lugones, y I. Rivero (Eds.), Innovación y empleo en tramas productivas de Argentina (pp. 323–348). Prometeo Libros. Lipsey, R., & Carlaw, K. (1998). Assessing innovation policies: Taking Schumpeter seriously on Technology Policy. In Industry Canada Working Paper, 25. López, A., Pascuini, P., & Ramos, A. (2018). Climbing the space ladder in the South: The case of Argentina. Space Policy. Lugones, G. L. M., & Lugones, Manuel. (2004, May). Bariloche y su grupo de empresas intensivas en conocimiento: Realidades y perspectivas. Aprendizado, Capacitação e Cooperação Em Arranjos Produtivos e Inovativos Locais de MPEs: Implicações Para Políticas. Seminário Mercosul, Brasil. Lund Declaration. (2009). The lund declaration: Europe must focus on the grand challenges of our time. Swedish E.U. Presidency. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2006). Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography, 6, 395–437. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2010). The new economic geography and policy relevance. Journal of Economic Geography, 11(2), 357–369. Mazzucato, M. (2014). Beyond market failures: Shaping and creating markets. University of Sussex. Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: Challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27 (5), 803–815. Mazzucato, M., & Penna, C. (2016). The Brazilian innovation system: A mission-oriented policy proposal (Avaliação de Programas Em CT&I. Apoio Ao Programa Nacional de Ciência (Plataformas de Conhecimento)). Centro de Gestão e Estudos Estratégicos. Mazzucato, M., & Robinson, K. R. (2016). Market creation and the European space agency: Towards a competitive, sustainable and mission-oriented space ecosystem. European Space Agency. Mazzucato, M., & Robinson, K. R. (2018). Co-creating and directing innovation ecosystems? NASA’s changing approach to public-private partnerships in lowearth orbit. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 166–177. Mendelson Forman, J., Sebathier, V., Faith, G. R., & Bander, A. (2009). Toward the heavens: Latin America’s emerging space programs. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Metcalfe, J. S., & Georghiou, L. (1997). Equilibrium and evolutionary foundations of technology policy. CRIC Discussion Paper, 3. Mowery, D. C. (2012). Defense-related R&D as a model for “grand challenges” technology policies. Research Policy, 41(10), 1703–1715. Neffke, F., Henning, M., & Boschma, R. (2011). How do regions diversify over time? industry relatedness and the development of new growth paths in regions. Economic Geography, 87 (3), 237–265.

9

REGIONAL DIVERSIFICATION, TECHNOLOGICAL TRAJECTORIES …

257

ONION. (2016). Fractionated and federated technology state of the art survey. European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. Ottosson, J., & Magnusson, L. (1997). Evolutionary economics and path dependence. Edward Elgar. Perez, C. (2001). Cambio tecnológico y oportunidades de desarrollo como blanco móvil. Perez, C. (2010). Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 185–202. Petroni, G., & Santini, S. (2012). Innovation and change? The evolution of Europe’s small satellite manufacturers. Space Policy, 28, 25–32. Rigby, D. L. (2015). Technological relatedness and knowledge space: Entry and exit of U.S. cities from patent classes. Regional Studies, 49(11), 1922–1937. Robinson, K. R., & Mazzucato, M. (2019). The evolution of mission-oriented policies: Exploring changing market creating policies in the U.S. and European space sector. Research Policy, 48(4), 936–948. Seijo, G. L., & Cantero, J. H. (2012). ¿Cómo hacer un satélite espacial a partir de un reactor nuclear? Revista REDES, 18(35). SIA. (2018). State of the satellite industry. Satellite Industry Association. Simmie, J., & Carpenter, J. (2007). Path dependence and the evolution of city regional development. Working Paper Series. Suarez Palacios, M. F. (2018). Análisis de las estrategias e innovación del desarrollo del clúster aeroespacial en Colombia. Universidad Militar Nueva Granada. http://hdl.handle.net/10654/20858. Thomas, H., Versino, M., & Lalouf, A. (2008). Invap: Una empresa nuclear y espacial argentina. In Thomas H., G. Santos & y M. (Eds.), FressoliInnovar en Argentina. Seis trayectorias empresariales basadas en estrategias intensivas en conocimiento. Lenguaje claro editora. UNCTAD. (2017). New innovation approaches to support the implementation of the sustainable development goals. Vázquez, M. Á., & Bocanegra, C. (2018). La industria aeroespacial en México: Características y retos en Sonora. Problemas Del Desarrollo, 49(195). Versino, M. (2006). Análise socio-tecnica de processos de produção de tecnologias intensivas em conhecimento em países subdesenvolvidos. A trajetória de uma empresa nuclear e espacial argentina (1970–2005). Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Versino, M., & Russo, C. (2010). Estado, tecnología y territorio: El desarrollo de bienes complejos en países periféricos. Revista De Estudios Regionales y Mercado De Trabajo, 6, 283–302. Villavicencio, D., Hernandez, J., & Souza, L. (2013). Capacidades y oportunidades para el desarrollo de la industria aeronáutica en Querétaro. In La industria aeroespacial: Complejidad productiva e institucional (Mónica Casalet, pp. 49–91). FLACSO. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.

CHAPTER 10

Structure and Operation of the National Policy Councils for Science, Technology and Innovation: The Cases of Chile and Spain Rodrigo A. Cevallos

10.1

and Carlos Merino Moreno

Introduction

Steering the efforts in science, technology, and innovation has positioned itself as a widespread condition in the development of countries. This intention has several complexities derived from their context, depicted by the National Innovation System (NIS) approach. The Innovation System is based on different sources of actors and their interactions, aimed to ‘pursue innovation processes’ and domains bounded either by a geographical/spatial setting, a sector, or specific activities (Edquist, 2005). These actors participate from different spheres, public and/or

R. A. Cevallos · C. Merino Moreno (B) Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected] R. A. Cevallos e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Ordónez-Matamoros et al. (eds.), Policy and Governance of Science, Technology, and Innovation, Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80832-7_10

259

260

R. A. CEVALLOS AND C. MERINO MORENO

private sectors, commonly have different interests, and typically also divergent levels of participation in the policy domains comprised in STI. However, this approach is often confronted with the frame of neoliberalism, which allegedly promotes non-interventionism from the government but constraining it to the design of framework conditions (Lundvall & Borrás, 2005), encouraging a passive role of the state mainly in the western countries (Martin, 2016). However, governments foster instances for the spheres to connect and interact with an agreed strategy for their countries to aim their efforts due to their legitimate interests. Among the policy options for this purpose, a relevant share of OECD countries—most Western countries, nuancing the aforementioned passive role of the state and adding complexity—has decided to deploy National Policy Councils for Science, Technology and Innovation1 (OECD, 2018b). The councils are rated one of the most important arrangements to achieve coordination of innovation policy, and also serve as a setting for other preferred methods such as the definition of national strategies and visions (OECD, 2012). In these councils, different stakeholders summoned by a country’s government gather to—at least— provide advice on the domains related to STI. The stakeholders of these domains are commonly portrayed as corporative actors (Pelkonen, 2006) referred to STI, such as universities, enterprises, and public and/or private research and/or technological institutes, among other organisations. In the context of a scarcely studied subject such as the governance of STI (Borrás & Edler, 2014; Edler & Fagerberg, 2017), the even lower scholarly attention paid to the organisations that are aimed to drive this governance may seem accessory. However, in the highly prescriptive context of the academic field of innovation policy studies (Flanagan & Uyarra, 2016), the policy reports based on NIS analysis that policyorientated organisations such as OECD, The World Bank and UNCTAD have increasingly performed for developed and developing countries (Chaminade et al., 2018); and at the same time confronted to the notion that the NIS approach fails in explaining how coordination is going to 1 The concept used in the cited work is Research and Innovation Council. However, as an umbrella concept, this chapter will use the term National Policy Council for Science, Technology and Innovation, to recognise the geographic—but also normative—boundaries of the organisation, to differentiate the policy councils from the councils mainly orientated to funding activities, and establishing the potential to participate in the domains of science, technology and innovation policy, even when some councils explicitly or implicitly focus in a specific domain.

10

STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL POLICY …

261

happen (Braun, 2008), further scholarly work seems critical. Moreover, in an STI landscape that increasingly requires to intertwine stakeholder participation and consensus on the future of STI—to cope and manage demanding objectives in terms of social capillarity, directionality and implementation, such as Grand Challenges (Kuhlmann & Rip, 2018), Missions (Mazzucato, 2018a,2018b) or the dimensions of Responsible Innovation (Stilgoe et al., 2013), more and better theory and evidence seems of the utmost importance in order to provide nurturing analyses and advice. This chapter aims to understand the relationship between the structure defined by governments for a council and its general operation on an empirical basis. In this process, to shed light on a broader range of options, an exploratory and descriptive study is performed to answer the following research questions: 1. How do different models of councils shape their operation? 2. How does the structure and operation of different councils relate to their mandates? A qualitative comparative case study analysis was performed in two councils, the Chilean National Innovation Council for Competitiveness (CNIC) and the Spanish Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (CACTI). These two countries share significant cultural and institutional features but also differ significantly in the history, design, and—arguably—in the implementation and operation of their councils. The Chilean Declaration of Independence from the Kingdom of Spain was signed in 1818, but several of the Spanish-inspired institutions still function today in Chile. However, these countries have developed following different paths in the last decades. Politically, Chile has had a strong presidential regime while Spain is still a monarchy with a parliamentary system; meanwhile, regarding the economic outlook, the Chilean economic growth has been based on harsh pro-market policies from a small and open economy and in Spain liberal policies have been embraced, with a welfare approach while joining the European Union. Due to the lack of substantial empirical evidence to address our research questions, rather than a binary response on the compliance of the councils’ expected products, the basis for this analysis will be the experience of the councilors who participated in these councils. As can

262

R. A. CEVALLOS AND C. MERINO MORENO

be understood from the above questions, this research aims to assess their operation and the councillors’ experiences on them, and not the performance of the councils in terms of their outputs or outcomes. This experience is relevant for both the scholarly field of governance of STI policy, specifically their organisations, and provides valuable lessons for policy implementation. The rest of this chapter is organised as follows: Sect. 10.2 frames the theoretical background of this research and showcases previous studies. Then, Sect. 10.3 explains the methodology and results obtained. Finally, Sect. 10.4 discusses the findings and provides some conclusions and avenues for further research.

10.2 Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, Governance and Policy Councils The high-level governance2 of STI remains an understudied subject and, in a more specific context, the study of the organisations of the field of STI has not had significant scholarly attention—with exceptions like Lepori and Reale’s study on research agencies (Lepori & Reale, 2019) and Breznitz et al.’s thorough work on innovation agencies (Breznitz et al., 2018). The policy domains of STI embrace different objectives; science policy aims to address mixed goals, in a wide range from the national prestige to cultural values, which includes national security, and other social and/or economic objectives; meanwhile, technology policy presents a shift from the purposes of science policy to an instrumental approach to ‘national prestige and economic objectives’, while innovation policy aims to address ‘economic growth and international competitiveness’ (Lundvall & Borrás, 2005). However, in the complexity of NISs institutions, it is broadly understood that they act as a guidepost for the actions to be developed by agents and collectives (Lundvall, 2016), and this makes them complex social systems on their own in which networks and relationships matter (de la Mothe, 2004).3 As recognised by Bengt Ake Lundvall, one of the positive impacts of the NIS consists of moving ‘the attention 2 For the specific case of Science and Technology, the increased tensions in their governance have led to a shift from government to governance (Borrás, 2012). 3 Probably, due to the context, this quote does not consider the differentiation made by Edquist and Johnson of Institutions into Institutions and Organizations (Edquist & Johnson, 2015).

10

STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL POLICY …

263

in policy circles in charge of research, innovation, and industrial development from linear to interactive thinking on innovation’(Lundvall, 2007). In this systemic context, NIS approach points towards ‘the desirability of alliances and coordination among the actors within the NIS to avoid system failure – the lack of cooperation and coordination’ (Schot & Steinmueller, 2018). This complexity is also a central part of the notion of NIS since it entails the interaction needed between organisations and institutions to promote innovation and also the strategic innovation systems management that the policymakers can develop to increase their influence (Fagerberg, 2017). As has been already mentioned, National Policy Councils for STI are one of the available, and increasingly preferred, policy options to deploy by governments to meet this systemic need. The notion of governance has been used by the OECD in the STI field, stressing its relationship with the concept of coordination, sketching how this latter term is commonly accountable for a substantial share of the failures linked to the former concept (OECD, 2012). The complexity of STI policy domains and the role of policy councils in their governance were empirically diagnosed in the early 2000s by the Monitoring and Implementing National Innovation Policies (MONIT) project developed by the OECD, mainly as a negotiation arena between actors, having high expectations on the strategic process but lower aspirations regarding the implementation of innovation policies in a horizontal level (OECD, 2005a). More specifically, councils4 are defined by Galli and Teubal as part of the organisations of NIS, along with ministries, bureaucratic bodies, regulatory bodies, social bodies, educational bodies, among others; highlighting their role in soft functions such as policymaking (Galli & Teubal, 2005), and are commonly suggested to achieve ‘more coordination in innovation policy’ (Edler & Fagerberg, 2017) and ‘more effective innovation governance’(Foxley et al., 2015). Following the analogy of Kuhlmann et al. (2010), the three dancers of innovation policy 5 have in the STI councils a ballroom to compose the melodies for their future dances. Building from these notions, previous studies have defined the councils as could be seen in Table 10.1. For this research, features from both definitions will be considered, since the first definition

4 In this case referring to Science and Technology Councils, which was the common entity at that time, following the ideas of Douglass C. North (1994). 5 Namely Innovation Theory, Innovation Policy and Innovation Practice.

264

R. A. CEVALLOS AND C. MERINO MORENO

Table 10.1 Definitions of councils in the literature VINNOVA 2015

OECD 2018

National councilsfor innovation or for science, technology and innovation are non-temporary bodies composed of experts or high-level stakeholders (or a combination of both), explicitly (e.g. by law) tasked by the government with doing one or several of the following: a. producing reports b. overseeing policy evaluation c. giving advice d. coordinating policy areas e. driving change f. making policy decisions (sometimes including decisions regarding budget allocations)

Research and Innovation Council, i.e., a non-temporary public body that takes decisions concerning Higher Education Institutions (HEI) and Public Research Institutions (PRI) policy, that has been explicitly mandated by law or statutes to do one or several of the following: a. providing policy advice b. overseeing policy evaluation c. coordinating policy areas relevant to public research (e.g. across ministries and agencies) d. setting policy priorities (i.e. strategy development, policy guidelines) e. joint policy planning (e.g. joint cross-ministry preparation of budgetary allocations)

Source Cevallos and Merino-Moreno (2020)

explicitly considers the involvement of experts and stakeholders and the second graphically frames their policy domains; both characteristics are essential for the working definition. STI policy councils could be illustrated as the nervous system of STI policy. The executive capacity resembles the central nervous system by analyzing and giving strategic foresight and then making things happen. On the other hand, the coordinative capacity shares some properties with the peripheral nervous system, having nerves and nerve fibres, by being sensitive to what is happening in the environment, communicating them to the rest of the system, and gathering resources that will trigger efforts and other systems’ responses. Following the same idea, part of the coordinative capacity of gathering actors and resources will happen involuntarily as an autonomic nervous system response, and others will need voluntary efforts as a parallel to the somatic nervous system. As the OECD data states (OECD, 2018a), the transversal evidence for innovation policy coordination stresses the role of the councils into strategic and coordination tasks. This mandate is related to the characteristics of the councils as a proxy of society and an intertemporal consensus device, and this involvement of the society complies with several, if not all, of the features for

10

STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL POLICY …

265

inclusive development highlighted by Dutrénit and Sutz (2014). However, not all systems—even those having the same organs—integrate these capacities and operate in the same way. The previous analogy helps to understand the role of the councils on the types of coordination highlighted by Braun the ‘functional/policy coordination’ in the context of a consensual agenda and strategy, and the ‘administrative coordination’ to put the pieces of machinery into action (Braun, 2008); but in this case with a span that goes beyond the government boundaries and reach. The differentiation of these organisations, as suggested above, into their structure and operation is critical due to analytical reasons. The structure of an organisation could be easily copied6 to be implemented in another country or setting. However, the operation embraces difficulties that are not simple to monitor regarding cultural and idiosyncratic factors among locations. In this scenario, the structure could be understood as a blueprint for an organisation, but the daily operation is what constitutes its performance. Following this idea, comparative studies mainly based on the structure of different STI councils, have been developed by international organisations, e.g., OECD, national agencies—on its own or commanded to international organisations or consultancy companies—or practitioners and scholars of the field (Borowiecki & Paunov, 2018; Escobar & Valenzuela, 2015; OECD, 2009; Schwaag-Serger et al., 2015). These analyses on the structures highlight some features such as the floating role of the councils within different governments (closer to the presidency, or to the ministries levels, or even lower in the hierarchy), the different styles regarding the composition of the councils, the abysmal differences in the resources devoted for them, among other relevant characteristics. Regarding the operation of the councils, besides some of the sources mentioned above, two in-depth research cases have been developed based on the experience of Sweden and Finland councils’ activity (Edquist, 2018; Pelkonen, 2006). Further details on the councils considered in this research will be discussed in the following subsections.

6 As stated in more detail by Lundvall, ‘strategies based on naïve copying may be avoided and institutional learning across national borders might be stimulated’ (Lundvall, 2016).

266

R. A. CEVALLOS AND C. MERINO MORENO

10.2.1

National Innovation Council for Competitiveness (CNIC)

By the year 2005, Chile was a thriving small open economy that was concerned about its future competitiveness. President Lagos commanded a commission to devise a council7 for STI in the last semester of his term. The resultant organisation was named National Innovation Council for Competitiveness (CNIC), this council was heavily based in the now replaced Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland (STPC) and gathered personalities from different backgrounds. The OECD stressed that long-term growth forecasts for Chile seemed nuanced by a low R&D investment—more dramatically by exiguous business investment in R&D—and a fragmented NIS, while being hopeful that the newly devised National Innovation Council can contribute to coordinating policies and actors (OECD, 2005b). CNIC’s establishment was considered the ‘most important institutional innovation in 30 years’ (Benavente et al., 2016), its operation lasted for almost fifteen years—including a slight variation to National Innovation Council for Development(CNID)8 since the year 2014—and through four presidential mandates of different coalitions that have mandated the Council by decree.9 In the year 2020, the Council will give room to a new council in the context of a reorganisation of the public Chilean STI institutionalisation.

7 ‘The issue (of innovation) seemed essential at that moment. We had to do something. We were at light years of the advanced world’. Mr. Ricardo Lagos Escobar, President of the Republic of Chile in the period of the years 2000–2006, interviewed on Wednesday 19 December 2018. 8 Shifting from ‘National Innovation Council for Competitiveness’(CNIC) to ‘National Innovation Council for Development’ (CNID), arguably a shift influenced by the mainstreaming of the concept inclusive development. For purposes of clarity and ease, in the remainder of the chapter the acronym CNIC will be used despite of the more accurate use of CNIC or CNID according to the timing of reference. 9 The first decree was named ‘Creation of the advisory commission for the Presidency National Council of Innovation for Competitiveness’ (Ministerio de Hacienda de la República de Chile, 2005).

10

10.2.2

STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL POLICY …

267

Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (CACTI)

The Spanish Law for Science, Technology and Innovation10 of the year 2011 consolidated a second phase of the Spanish development in Science, Technology and Innovation. As highlighted by Cueto (Cueto Pérez, 2012), the law recognises the development of capacities of the autonomic communities, the full integration of Spain to the European Union,11 the need for a new framework for the science system, the growth in the scientific community, and the necessity of new ways to promote economic growth. The law crystallised the position of the Council, with the possibility to intervene in the strategic process of STI and act as a bridge for the society to influence these policy domains (Díez Bueso, 2013). In this context, CACTI acts as a successor of a previous government body in charge of advising on fostering science and technology, Advisory Council for Science and Technology (CACT), now including the involvement of the dimension of fostering innovation. CACT was a massive council, with thirty-five councillors, around one-third of them from the government and two-thirds from the rest of society. The new Council has had two periods in operation until the year 2019, which mostly coincides with two governmental conformations.

10.3

Methodology and Results 10.3.1

Research Methodology

As previously introduced, this research considers research cases chosen following the polar cases sampling method—two-tailed for Yin (2003) and diverse for Seawright and Gerring (2008), which allows the researcher to ‘observe contrasting patterns in the data’ leading to ‘very clear pattern recognition of the central constructs, relationships, and logic of the focal phenomenon’ (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). For this purpose, and based on the criteria developed in previous research (Cevallos & Merino Moreno, 2020), the cases of the Chilean and Spanish Council were selected. The article of Cevallos & Merino Moreno presents an 10 Ley 14/2011, de 1 de junio, de la Ciencia, la Tecnología y la Innovación (Jefatura del Estado, 2011). 11 These differences embrace new difficulties due to the different levels of policy, for further details review Magro et al. (2014).

268

R. A. CEVALLOS AND C. MERINO MORENO

index—iNPC—based on the structural characteristics of the councils; the results for these two councils are that the Chilean Council rates as a strong council—iNPC = 10—with transformative potential, and the Spanish Council an agile council—iNPC = 4—with consultant potential. This opposition is a strong reason for these councils to be selected for this study; adding that while having these differences, these two countries (due to historical reasons) also share some institutional and cultural settings, enriching the comparison. However, for this research a different Spanish council from the predominantly used on the RESGOV database will be considered, the Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (CACTI) due to a better alignment with the policy domains of STI than those discussed in the OECD study. After reviewing the legal confirmation of this council’s structure, it sheds light that could also be identified as an agile council (iNPC = 4). Therefore, the parallel of the structural characteristics of the councils is summarised in Table 10.2 and deepening in the coordinative capacity in Table 10.3. The next table zooms in the coordinative capacity presented in the previous table for the contemporary councils. Expectedly by research design, both tables lead to a significant differentiation in the structures of these councils. Data Collection and Analysis The methodology followed in this research for data collection consisted of interviews conducted in Santiago (Chile) and Madrid (Spain),12 with current and former councillors, authorities, and staff of the councils between August 2018 and August 2019. The interviews were semistructured, addressing topics such as: nomination process, dedication to the council, operation of the council, council’s strengths and weaknesses, resources, relations with other governmental bodies, among other topics. The interviews were digitally recorded, and anonymity was guaranteed for the interviewee unless special arrangements were made for publicity, e.g., former President of the Republic of Chile, Mr Ricardo Lagos Escobar. Regarding the councillors, ten from CNIC and five from CACTI were

12 This was not part of the design of the research, since both councils have members from other cities, but either they declined to participate or preferred to do it in the capital cities.

Source Authors

Coordinative Capacity

Executive Capacity Involvement of the Ministries Level Outstanding Personalities Funding for internal capacities

Government Officials Funding for external capacities

Composition

Resources

Coordination

Involvement of the Top Level

Joint Planning

Executive's Role

Council's Role Advice

Representatives of Society (Stakeholders) Funding for logistics

Involvement of the Upper Management Level

Chilean Council of Innovation for Development (CNIC)

Table 10.2 Comparison of the councilscouncils’ structure

Coordinative Capacity Resources

Composition

Funding for external capacities

Government Officials

Representatives of Society (Stakeholders) Funding for Funding for logistics internal capacities Outstanding Personalities

Spanish Advisory Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (CACTI) Council's Joint Planning Coordination Advice Role Executive Involvement Involvement of Capacity of the the Upper Executive's Involvement of the Top Level Ministries Management Role Level Level

10 STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL POLICY …

269

270

R. A. CEVALLOS AND C. MERINO MORENO

Table 10.3 Comparison of the councils’ features of coordinative capacity Composition

CNID (CHILE)

CACTI (SPAIN)

Government Officials

4 councillors Ministers of Finance, Economy, Education, and Agriculture, or their representatives 14 councillors One of them is appointed president of the council by the government with partial dedication 2 councillors One vice-president for research from the universities and one expert in vocational training from the professional institutes, both in consultation with the Ministry of Economy 3 councillors The chairpersons of the agencies for research, for innovation, and the Innovation Division of the Ministry of Economics 23 councillors Funding for institutionalisation, studies and logistics provided by an exclusive secretariat and budget

Nil

Outstanding Personalities

Representatives of Society (Stakeholders)

Guests

TOTAL Resources

10 councillors One of them is elected president of the council by the councillors 4 councillors Two representatives of the central business confederations and two of the main unions

Nil

14 councillors Funding for logistics provided by a ministerial office

Source Authors, based on Chilean and Spanish normative frameworks as of year 2019

interviewed.13 The councillors’ interviews were analysed following the structure already mentioned, and quotes of these interviews are displayed for every dimension to complement the analysis. The reason to focus on the testimonies of the councillors is twofold: firstly, they are in the best position regarding the councils since they know the reality of their 13 The comparison in the number of interviewed may seem imbalanced, but the universe of councillors also differs in a similar proportion because of the composition and the duration of every council. More information about the interviews is available in Annex 1.

10

STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL POLICY …

271

operation, and secondly, they are also embedded in communities that are related to the decisions and discussions regarding the councils’ outputs and outcomes. 10.3.2

Results

The results are structured following the same dimensions of analysis used for the councils, as follows. Policy Domain For both cases, even when the policy domain of innovation is within the scope of the councils, it remains the most unattainable of the subjects. The councillors discourses reflect that the council is prone to the discussion of the issues in the domains of science and technology, but innovation remains auxiliary; most of the time supposing that innovation processes will happen spontaneously by the operation and interests of the companies. Therefore, while the councils do their best for the action on the policy domain of innovation, some councillors recognise that it is a forced task. From my perspective, it is a mistake to mix science, technology and innovation. For a fundamental reason: innovation is made by companies, so the audiences are different (…), and if you go deep into this, the timings are different (…), the financing is different (…). The only thing that binds innovation with science and technology is that they are sources of progress, innovation mainly economic progress and science and technology progress in knowledge and to provide innovation with everything that needs. Therefore it seems to be an error that dates back to the year 1986. (Spanish Councillor N°4)

Executive Capacity The observed evidence points towards unmatched expectations along with higher inputs of executive capacities. Thus, even when the Chilean case seemed better aligned due to its structural definition, the operation of this design did not match the expectations of its mandate. On the other hand, the Spanish case seems less concerned about the operation of the council regarding their executive capacity, since their limits and mandate are not often challenged.

272

R. A. CEVALLOS AND C. MERINO MORENO

Council’s Role Regarding the role played by the councils, the experiences that emerged from the councillors’ testimonies suggest that their operation either matched or failed to comply with their expectations. For the case with higher structural inputs, Chilean CNIC, concepts like ‘missed opportunity’ arise, often linked with a diagnosis of deficiencies in the definition of ‘rituals’ regarding the operation of the council. CACTI’s experience is less criticised, in a context of lower expectations from the councillors given the mandate of the Law. …A problem at this time is that the Council does not act on its initiative, it acts on demand of the recommendations that the government asks it to issue to evaluate or to accommodate its policies, and also according to the demands of information requested by the Council (of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy).14 (Spanish Councillor N°3)

Executive’s Role The role exercised by the executive is again par or below expectations. For the Chilean case, the function of the ministries is assessed as shallow, even declining to participate in many of the meetings and giving representation of the ministers to third parties; and for the agencies—acknowledged their different role in the council—an excess of independence.15 For the Spanish side, this was the lowest feature regarding the structural inputs, so was not an issue of concern. An unexpected element in the analysis was the role of the president of the council, who in both cases seemed to have a critical role in connecting the operation of the council with the governmental authorities. In the Chilean case, the president has an essential role in the agenda-setting process for the council, between the council and its secretariat, and with the governmental authorities, while in the Spanish council has a role of communication with the government primarily.

14 This is a governmental policy council, which shares important features with the Chilean Council of Ministers. 15 A closer look at the complexities between governments and specialised agencies could be observed in the Braun and Guston approach to the principal-agent theory and research policy (Braun & Guston, 2003).

10

STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL POLICY …

273

…In the original design there were going to be meetings with the President of the Republic, and also a Council of Ministers16 that had to coordinate. It never worked, so the problem was that this (council, CNIC) has a certain role regarding the fostering of public deliberation, but the formal channel to the execution was lost (…) all of this should go into enhancing the alignment, but that alignment only works if there is political will. (Chilean Councillor N°3)

Coordinative Capacity The testimonies gathered suggest that this dimension complies in its operation with the original design, independently of the levels that every council has. The composition is regarded as a critical axis of the work of the council while having the appropriate support in resources is also a growing expectation of achieving higher levels of performance. Composition The composition of the councils is commonly assessed as positive in regard to embracing the diversity of actors in the discussion for the future of STI policy for each country. However, some harsh judgments regarding the interests of the actors could be observed from the least to the most traditional communities (because of their organisation or resources), e.g. innovators and entrepreneurs to the science community. However, it did not seem that the explicit representation was an issue, but rather the background of the councillors. The capacity in which the councillors were nominated, on an individual nomination or as representative of a collective, did not emerge as a negative issue but rather as a specific input of information that nurtured the discussions of the councils. Moreover, even when the Spanish council did not consider government officials in their composition, it was highlighted that a position not considered in the law, a Deputy Director of the Ministry of Industries, acted as a secretary of the council and a facilitator with the government that surpassed preconceptions, obtaining higher involvement from the authorities in time.

16 This ineffective relationship with the Council of Ministers was also highlighted in the Chilean strategy for STI (CNID, 2017).

274

R. A. CEVALLOS AND C. MERINO MORENO

The strength of the Council is that the members of the councils (…) are prominent members of the research, business development and innovation communities. Let’s say that they are proven people with a curriculum that is powerful enough and well known enough for their opinions to be weighted opinions, that is why it is an advisory council, in such a way that we say that has the authority in the sense that they know what they are discussing. It is evident and recognised that all have a broad background in research, development and innovation. (Spanish Councillor N°1)

Resources Despite the configuration of the support given by the governments to their councils, there is an urgent need regarding the relationship with the resources for supporting their work. Ranging from a secretariat to a thinktank in Chile or from logistic support to at least a small dedicated office in Spain; in both cases having a higher level of independence is highlighted as a feature to achieve higher levels of performance. I think that the Council without the Secretariat is worthless; it does not work. There has to be a technical team to do the routine work, elaborate information, nurture the Council (…) There have to be people with a profile related to mid to long-term strategical thinking, which is the role of an Innovation Council, and I believe that there are currently people with that profile and high-level, but not all of them, not all of them. (Chilean Councillor N°10)

Summary Following the structure of the research, the executive capacity of the councils seems to have greater room to improve than the coordinative capacity, enhancing the expected role of the councils. From a longitudinal perspective, the experiences of the councillors suggest the internal policy learning process of the organisations. In the Chilean case, due mainly to political reasons within the government, the discussion shifted from an orientation regarding the STI budget as the centre for the debate, to the future challenges and the society’s involvement on these; and on the Spanish side, it moved from a council that was only considered to be informed about the governmental decisions on STI policy to a more active role in the discussion of these subjects. According to the testimonies gathered, these shifts had to do with the change of governments—in the Chilean experience also with the leadership styles of the council’s presidencies—and the active role of the council to enhance their participation.

10

STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL POLICY …

275

However, the overall strategic capacity of the councils seems nuanced in the long run, either by design—low executive capacity as in Spain— or operation—low long-term binding through presidential terms as in Chile17 —and despite the contextual characteristics of the political regimes of Chile and Spain. The rules of the game – the responsibilities and attributions that we have as councillors – the responsibilities, obligations, rituals that the Council itself has of what it should be, and has to do, and how the conversations are organised, and the commitments are generated, and the distillates of that work, I think they are still in a very arbitrary field (…) Over time, that ‘high expectations’, that we were going to generate a series of critical strategic guidelines, was acquiring a certain colour and smell of disenchantment. (Chilean Councillor N°5)

Despite this particular comparison of cases, further research seems needed to understand the real implications of the councils, and whether they are conceived as a means or as an end by the governments, with the broader view of the potential decoupling between our original argumentation regarding their restricted or entrepreneurial role and their relationship with the overall economic model of the countries.

10.4

Conclusions and Discussion

‘One size does not fit all’ seems the new mantra when discussing STI policy and the results of this research are on the same track. From the research design, it was expected to devise the differences between the two models of councils presented. For the evidence gathered in this research, it is confirmed that there is significant heterogeneity in the structure and in the councils’ operation due to their official and even to their unofficial and social characteristics. These considerations should be borne in mind by scholars and policy advisers while acting prescriptively in regards to the STI domains and ultimately STI organisations since these features defie the specific design of governance mechanisms. However, some commonalities also emerge, specifically regarding the policy domain of focus of 17 This issue has been highlighted in previous literature as ‘the lack of a transversal and solid political agreement’ as the main source for CNIC’s not meeting their mandated role, jointly as it had not been backed by a specific law (UNCTAD, 2017). However, this last argument was not expressly present in the discourse of the councillors.

276

R. A. CEVALLOS AND C. MERINO MORENO

the council and its approach, the need for an upgrade of resources, the intertemporal challenge, and the high esteem on the composition of the councils, among others. For the discussion about the policy domain, the gathered evidence suggests that this definition requires more advanced levels of policy learning, since a relevant share of the councillors appears more comfortable with the discussions based on the domains of science and technology, while the policy domain of innovation is still harder to grasp. This idea shares some commonalities with the observation of Edquist, in which an innovation council should be separate from a science and technology council, since these are policy domains with different communities and aims (Edquist, 2018). This process may be connected with the concept of bounded rationalities suggested by Kuhlmann et al. (2010), experiences that could be enhanced by the fostering of actors’ evolutionary paths (Dutrénit et al., 2018) which at least in this evidence seems to be useful. This practical difficulty confronts the well-established notion of the innovation policy governance as a transversal and gathering instance for a full array of related actors. Regarding the existence of relevant shifts within councils for every government change—defined as dynamic inconsistency 18 —still poses a challenge for long-term strategies that have not been significantly nuanced by the existing mechanisms—e.g. maintaining a policy of staggered renovation of councillors for every CNIC’s term (CNIC, 2007)—but leaving space for long-term coordinationby commitment and trust (Nooteboom, 2000). From the last two points, the issue of independence emerges as one of the findings of this work. Apparently, there is a transversal will of the councils of having more independence from the current government in defining their products and outcomes, and also that these agreements can ensure their intertemporal autonomy and have the chance to be honoured despite the political shifts. These findings are a severe threat to the effectiveness of the devices constructed to foster the governance for STI, affecting the outcomes of the resultant shared view, and mining the trust in the current and successive processes of the deployed institutionalisation. 18 Identified as part of the sources of risk for public intervention on the STI policy area by Benavente and Price (2014), previously identified by Orozco et al. (2015), on a study focused on the Chilean case, as governmental policies rather than achieving the expected role of state policies.

10

STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL POLICY …

277

Nevertheless, essential differences could also be highlighted. As it can be distilled from Braun’s work (Braun, 2008), it is easier for a government to comply with material considerations, mostly represented in the coordinative capacity in terms of resources and composition, than to resign to the exercise of their power and will as the executive capacity requires. This phenomenon is aligned with the founded evidence regarding greater gaps in operation with greater structural capacities, and the lower achievement obtained from the executive capacity compared to the coordinative capacity for the studied Councils. Moreover, the coordination tasks— that due to the defined structure were evident in the Chilean case and less clear in the Spanish case—seemed more straightforward to handle with the rest of the societal actors than within the government, either between different ministries or most notably from the council to the agencies. As expected, the capacity of the councils to address their coordination and strategic challenges is nuanced either explicitly by their design—structure—or implicitly by their implementation—operation. The phenomena addressed in this chapter adds a layer of complexity to the study of governance for STI, specifically on the level of the efforts made by public organisations to gather expertise and will in devising the shared views for the future. Meanwhile, the evidence and analysis collected for this research open several avenues for future work. For instance, each studied dimension revealed a rich set of information that could lead to relevant findings, for the underpinning theory, the transversal theoretical concept of governance, and the implementation of governance and policies: e.g. the boundaries of the action of the councils (the specifics of their field of activity), the relationship of independence, dependence or interdependence with the government, a more general theory for councils definition, among others. Specifically relevant due to their policy implications is the need to make explicit the mechanisms19 and tasks commanded to the councils and its president, to serve as a guide but also to manage expectations regarding the council’s outcomes and outputs. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Professor Charles Edquist (Lund University-CIRCLE) and Professor Jakob Edler (Fraunhofer-ISI) for their 19 As a functional output of this research, based on the observed experiences collected, a practical advice on how to design and implement a National Policy Council for Science, Technology and Innovation is offered in Annex 2.

278

R. A. CEVALLOS AND C. MERINO MORENO

insight into this research. Previous and partial versions of this research have been presented in several settings (Eu-SPRI Early Career Researcher Conference (ECC) 2018, Congreso Internacional Red GCTI, and Globelics PhD Academy 2019). The authors acknowledge and are grateful for the suggestions and comments received from both the audiences and the reviewers of these events. The authors appreciate the thoughtful comments and suggestions of the anonymous reviewers. As usual, any remaining errors are our own.

Annex 1: Information About the Interviewed Councillors Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor

N°1 N°2 N°3 N°4 N°5 N°6 N°7 N°8 N°9 N°10 N°1 N°2 N°3 N°4 N°5

Council

Country

Date and place of interview

CNIC CNIC CNIC CNIC CNIC CNIC CNIC CNIC CNIC CNIC CACTI CACTI CACTI CACTI CACTI

Chile Chile Chile Chile Chile Chile Chile Chile Chile Chile Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain

August 07th 2018; Santiago, Chile August 13th 2018; Santiago, Chile August 17th 2018; Santiago, Chile August 21st 2018; Santiago, Chile August 22nd 2018; Santiago, Chile December 21st 2018; Santiago, Chile December 26th 2018; Santiago, Chile December 26th 2018; Santiago, Chile December 27th 2018; Santiago, Chile July 05th 2019; Santiago, Chile October 10th 2018; Madrid, Spain February 26th 2019; Madrid, Spain March 15th 2019; Madrid, Spain April 08th 2019; Madrid, Spain April 24th 2019; Madrid, Spain

Source Authors

Annex 2: Practical Advice for the Design and Implementation of a National Policy Council for Science, Technology and Innovation 1. Define a clear focus of activity for the council in order to address its domain effectively. 2. Define explicitly and in advance, the processes, functions, outputs and outcomes expected from the council and its councillors.

10

STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL POLICY …

279

3. Define explicitly and in advance, the processes of communication between the council and the government. 4. Define explicitly and in advance, the processes that the government will follow to evaluate and eventually implement the proposals of the council. 5. Define explicitly and in advance, the scope of action of the council, in terms of its boundaries in interacting with other organisations. 6. Provide the council with the independence needed in order to be isolated from a potential influx of interests, especially from the government. 7. Provide the council with the appropriate resources to match the outcomes and outputs expected, specifically human resources and relevant information. 8. Designate a president for the council with proven social and political skills and technical knowledge. 9. Designate councillors with various backgrounds, ideally with experience in different activities related to the purpose of the council, and in a manageable number. 10. Schedule activities and delivery dates for the outputs of the council well in advance, considering the best timing for these outputs to be evaluated and eventually implemented; while the meetings should be informative, reflexive and executive.

References Benavente, J. M., Bravo, C., Goya, D., & Zahler, A. (2016). Collaboration in clusters and technology consortia: The case of Chile. In E. Fernández Arias, C. F. Sabel, E. H. Stein, & A. Trejos (Eds.), Two to tango: Public-private collaboration for productive development policies (pp. 189–236). Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). Benavente, J. M., & Price, J. J. (2014). Evolution of the public institutions of science, technology, and innovation in Chile. In G. Crespi & G. Dutrénit (Eds.), Science, technology and innovation policies for development (pp. 45–62) Springer. Retrieved from http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=884371069 Borowiecki, M., & Paunov, C. (2018). How is research policy across the OECD organised?. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/235c98 06-en Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/235c9806-en Borrás, S. (2012). Three tensions in the governance of science and technology. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 429–440).

280

R. A. CEVALLOS AND C. MERINO MORENO

Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/978019956 0530.013.0030. Retrieved from http://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10. 1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199560530e-30 Borrás, S., & Edler, J. (2014). Introduction: On governance, systems and change. In S. Borrás & J. Edler (Eds.), The governance of socio-technical systems: Explaining change (pp. 1–22) Edward Elgar Publishing. https:// doi.org/10.4337/9781784710194.00010. Retrieved from http://www.elg aronline.com/view/9781784710187.00010.xml Braun, D. (2008). Organising the political coordination of knowledge and innovation policies. Science and Public Policy, 35(4), 227–239. https://doi.org/ 10.3152/030234208X287056 Braun, D., & Guston, D. H. (2003). Principal-agent theory and research policy: An introduction. Science and Public Policy, 30(5), 302–308. https://doi.org/ 10.3152/147154303781780290 Breznitz, D., Ornston, D., & Samford, S. (2018). Mission critical: The ends, means, and design of innovation agencies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27 (5), 883–896. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty027 Cevallos, R. A., & Merino Moreno, C. (2020). National policy councils for science, technology and innovation: A scheme for structural definition and implementation. Science and Public Policy, 47 (5), 705–718. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/scipol/scaa052 Chaminade, C., Lundvall, B., & Haneef, S. (2018). Advanced introduction to national innovation systems. Retrieved from http://lup.lub.lu.se/record/ee7 6fc4a-c7e8-4638-8f3d-0e1d2ec5746f CNIC. (2007). Hacia una Estrategia Nacional de Innovación, volumen 1. Santiago de Chile: CNID. (2017). Ciencias, tecnologías e innovación para un nuevo pacto de desarrollo sostenible e inclusivo. Retrieved from http://www.cnid.cl/wp-con tent/uploads/2017/05/CTI-para-un-nuevo-pacto-de-desarrollo-CNID-2aedicion.pdf Cueto Pérez, M. (2012). Incidencia de la nueva Ley de la Ciencia en el régimen jurídico de las universidades. Revista de Administración Pública, núm 187 . CEPC - Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales. Retrieved from https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3922088 de la Mothe, J. (2004). The institutional governance of technology, society, and innovation. Technology in Society, 26(2), 523–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.techsoc.2004.01.009 Díez Bueso, L. (2013). La gobernanza del sistema español de ciencia, tecnología e innovación. Revista De Bioética Y Derecho (28), 20–32. https://doi.org/ 10.4321/S1886-58872013000200003

10

STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL POLICY …

281

Dutrénit, G., & Sutz, J. (2014). Introduction to national innovation systems, social inclusion and development. National innovation systems, social inclusion and development Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/ 9781782548683 Retrieved from http://www.elgaronline.com/view/978178 2548676.xml Dutrénit, G., Natera, J. M., Puchet Anyul, M., Vera-Cruz, A. O., & Torres, A. (2018). Dialogue processes on STI policy-making in Latin America and the Caribbean: Dimensions and conditions. Science and Public Policy, 45(3), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scx044 Edler, J., & Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: What, why, and how. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 2–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/ grx001 Edquist, C. (2005). Systems of innovation, perspectives and challenges. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press. Edquist, C. (2018). Towards a holistic innovation policy: Can the Swedish National Innovation Council (NIC) be a role model? Research Policy. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.008 Edquist, C., & Johnson, B. (2015). Institutions and organizations in systems of innovation. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation; technologies, institutions and organizations (pp. 41–63) Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25– 32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888 Escobar, B., & Valenzuela, A. (2015). Autoridades para la promoción de innovación: ¿cuán efectivos son los diferentes modelos nacionales? CIEPLAN. Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: Rationales, lessons and challenges. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(2), 497–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes. 12164 Flanagan, K., & Uyarra, E. (2016). Four dangers in innovation policy studies— And how to avoid them. Industry and Innovation, 23(2), 177–188. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1146126 Foxley, A., Saez, R. E., & Valenzuela, A. (2015). Outcome report on the first meeting of the global forum of national advisory councils on science, technology and innovation. Galli, R., & Teubal, M. (2005). Paradigm shifts in national innovation systems. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation; technologies, institutions and organizations (pp. 342–370). Jefatura del Estado, Ley 14/2011, de 1 de junio, de la ciencia, la tecnología y la innovación. (2011).

282

R. A. CEVALLOS AND C. MERINO MORENO

Kuhlmann, S., & Rip, A. (2018). Next-generation innovation policy and grand challenges. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 448–454. https://doi.org/10. 1093/scipol/scy011 Kuhlmann, S., Shapira, P., & Smits, R. (2010). Introduction. A systemic perspective: The innovation policy dance. In R. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, & P. Shapira (Eds.), Theory and practice of innovation policy. Edward Elgar. Lepori, B., & Reale, E. (2019). The changing governance of research systems. agencification and organizational differentiation in research funding organizations. In D. Simon, S. Kuhlmann, J. Stamm, & W. Canzler (Eds.), Handbook on science and public policy. Edward Elgar. Lundvall, B. (2007). National innovation systems-analytical concept and development tool. Industry and Innovation, 14(1), 95–119. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13662710601130863 Lundvall, B. (2016). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. In B. Lundvall (Ed.), The learning economy and the economics of hope. Anthem Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor. org/stable/j.ctt1hj9zjd.9 Lundvall, B., & Borrás, S. (2005). Science, technology and innovation policy. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press. Magro, E., Navarro, M., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2014). CoordinationMix: The hidden face of STI policy. Review of Policy Research, 31(5), 367– 389. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12090 Martin, B. R. (2016). Twenty challenges for innovation studies. Science and Public Policy, 43(3), 432–450. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv077 Mazzucato, M. (2018a). Mission-oriented innovation policies: Challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27 (5), 803–815. https:// doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty034 Mazzucato, M. (2018b). Mission-oriented research & innovation in the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2777/360325 Ministerio de Hacienda de la República de Chile, Decreto N°1408: Crea Comisión Asesora Presidencial Consejo de Innovación para la Competitividad. (2005). Retrieved from https://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma= 245508&tipoVersion=0 Nooteboom, B. (2000). Institutions and forms of coordination in innovation systems. Organization Studies, 21(5), 915–939. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0170840600215004 North, D. C. (1994). Economic performance through time. The American Economic Review, 84(3), 359–368. Retrieved from http://www.econis.eu/ PPNSET?PPN=260449245 OECD. (2005a). Governance of innovation systems. Volume 1. Synthesis Report (p. 117). Author.

10

STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL POLICY …

283

OECD. (2005b). OECD economic surveys: Chile 2005. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-chl-2005-en OECD. (2009). Chile’s National Innovation Council for Competitiveness. OECD. (2012). OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2012. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-tec hnology/oecd-science-technology-and-industry-outlook-2012_sti_outlook2012-en OECD. (2018a). OECD Database of governance of public research policy (RESGOV). Retrieved from https://stip.oecd.org/resgov/ OECD. (2018b). OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2018. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2018-en. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2018-en Orozco, L. A., Cancino, R., Garcia, M., Moreno, G.,Petit-Breuilh, J., Goñi, J., … Ordoñez-Matamoros, G. (2015). Redes depolítica y gobernanza de los sistemas nacionales de innovación: una comparaciónentre Chile y Colombia. In R. Casas & A. Mercado (Eds.), Mirada Iberoamericana a las Políticas de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación: Perspectivas comparadas (pp. 221– 258) Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales - CLACSO. Retrieved from https://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:ris.utwente.nl:public ations%2F7e77f708-84f1-4110-8883-a98cf9d66d87 Pelkonen, A. (2006). The problem of integrated innovation policy: Analyzing the governing role of the science and technology policy council of Finland. Science and Public Policy, 33(9), 669–680. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154 306781778623 Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47 (9), 1554–1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011 Schwaag-Serger, S., Wise, E., & Arnold, E. (2015). National research and innovation councils as an instrument of innovation governance. Retrieved from http://lup.lub.lu.se/record/358845c4-356c-4b46-a5a2-c6cfdfd81a5f Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907313077 Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008 UNCTAD. (2017). Curso de formación sobre políticas de CTI - MÓDULO 2: Formulación y evaluación de políticas de CTI. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.

CHAPTER 11

Adequacy of Governance of Science, Technology and Innovation in Developing Countries: The Colombian Case Iván Montenegro-Trujillo

11.1 11.1.1

Introduction

Colombian Governance and Institutionality

First of all, the central government realm, presents a noticeable weakness in strategic foresight and medium-term planning, which affects STI governance (OECD, 2013). 1 Colombian Agency of STI.

The elaboration of this paper was supported by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Colombia-Fescol. The paper was translated by Gabriel Montenegro Perini MS and revised by Juan Pablo Isaza M.P.A. I. Montenegro-Trujillo (B) Independent Senior Researcher and Consultant, Bogotá D. C., Colombia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Ordónez-Matamoros et al. (eds.), Policy and Governance of Science, Technology, and Innovation, Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80832-7_11

285

286

I. MONTENEGRO-TRUJILLO

Law 1286 of 2009, had the main goal of strengthening both the National Science and Technology System and Colciencias,1 transforming the latter into an Administrative Department under the executive power (Presidency of the Republic), so as to establish a productive model based on science, technology and innovation, and promote productive development and a new national industry. Article 186 of Law 1753 of 2015, wich enacted the national development plan 2015–2018, stipulates the “integration” of the Competitiveness and Innovation System with the Science, Technology and Innovation System to consolidate a single Competitiveness System, Science, Technology and Innovation (Orozco, Villaveces, Moreno and OrdoñezMatamoros, 2019). It should be noted that Colciencias takes the initiative to improve the resource management framework of 10% of the total royalties, which are resources revenues resulting from the exploitation of non-renewable natural resources, mining and hydrocarbons, achieving the approval of a constitutional reform that stipulates that the resources will be allocated based on public calls administered by Colciencias. It is worth mentioning some recent initiatives for the strengthening of the national system (Academia de Ciencias, 2018), which point out that it is urgent to provide the System with the capacity for reflection, foresight and direction, for which it is necessary to “organize the house”, creating a High-level collegiate—a National Council of Science, Technology and Innovation—which must become the highest authority in the system. Simultaneosly, on January 2019 the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation was created under Law 1951 (Cámara de Representantes de Colombia, 2018), and on December 2019 by Decree 2226 its structure was approved and its functions were defined. However during the present year, this law was declared null by de Constitutional Court, wich granted a period of two years for the enactment of a new law by the Congress. 11.1.2

The Importance of Inclusive Institutionality

One of the central problems of science and innovation in Colombia is its relative stagnation, since while it is the Latin American country where the scientific production has grown the most during the last decade, it maintains a growing gap with respect to most of the OECD countries, and has occupied, for years, the fifth place in the Latin American region. This chapter will promote the importance of institutionality, and

11

ADEQUACY OF GOVERNANCE OF SCIENCE …

287

governance in particular, regarding the dynamization of scientific production and innovation, in terms of contributing substantially to overcoming a central problem of context, common to most Latin American countries: the vicious circle established between an extremely weak demand for knowledge by the productive and social sectors, which does not legitimize the generation of knowledge, implying low but dynamic knowledge production, which, in turn, maintain Latin American economies and societies in stagnation and backwardness. The goal of this study is to examine the stagnation/crisis of the STI and the crisis of the STI governance in Colombia, so as to contend a proposal of change regarding the governance scheme in the country that contributes to overcoming the aforementioned problem of the vicious circle (Orozco et al., 2019). It is proposes the creation of a National STI Council and the changes on the basic design of the STI Ministry. 11.1.3

Cultural Context

In general, compared to Latin America, the Colombian case involves a characteristic and sui generis syncretism—modernization against modernity—stated, since the beginning of the twentieth century, in the advancement of the productive sector and infrastructure, without substantial variations in the traditionalist conception of the world, due to the influence of a confessional mindset from the Concordat with the Catholic Church of 1887 and the Constitution of 1886 (Velez, 1998). According to Villaveces (1991), that particular syncretism has facilitated the limited penetration of scientific rationality in Colombia, and, due to a utilitarian conception of it, the pedagogical work in Colombia has diffused a conception of science “by revelation”—of a religious nature—, in which learning is done by authority, against what our senses appreciate in the first place. 11.1.4

Governance Frameworks Study

By considering the necessary adaptation to the Colombian context, this section will consider some useful cases in which are highlighted key aspects of governance. These are the cases of Chile (Benavente, 2006; Comisión Asesora Presidencial, 2013; Comisión Presidencial Ciencia para el Desarrollo, 2015); Mexico (Dutrénit & Puchet, 2017; Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico, Lalics, 2014; Kuhlmann, 2017); South

288

I. MONTENEGRO-TRUJILLO

Korea (Montenegro, 2015) and the United States (Mazzucato, 2015). The chapter will address each of these cases along its development.

11.2 11.2.1

Conceptual Framework

The Preponderance of the Institutional Dimension

The importance of institutions—political and economic— must be addressed here, in terms of their contribution to the prosperity or stagnation of countries (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012); in particular, the high influence of inclusive political institutions, referring to the following factors: a certain degree of centralization of the State, the formalization and practice of pluralism, respect for political and human rights, and the existence and practice of the law. In the case of Colombia, it becomes necessary to highlight, from a historical perspective, a structural flaw in its governance system: the implicit agreement between the national elite and the regional elites, which seek to support the former by establishing certain form of laxity in the central elite in respect of the alliance between regional elites, paramilitaries and drug traffickers, in order for this local alliance manages to fight the guerrillas, and is given freedom to run things as they please concerning public resources predation (Robinson, 2013). A critical juncture, defined as a major event that disrupts the existing political and economic balance in society, can be assigned in the Colombian case to the ending of the longest internal conflict in the western hemisphere, with probable impacts in Colombia—modernization of the countryside and the economy, political openness—but also with continental repercussions—“disarmament” of radical right-wing factions in many countries of the American continent—, and global lessons as for the experience gathered in the negotiation peace process and, in particular, for the learning achieved in the design of the transitional justice system. However, while writing this chapter—June 2020—various and profound attacks to the implementation of the peace process have taken place, generating an environment of great uncertainty, which could be viewed both as an optimistic and pessimistic scenario. The optimistic scenario is emerging—although in the short-term perspective it does not allow an immediate change to be foreseen,—based on a probable and positive interaction of this critical juncturewith the

11

ADEQUACY OF GOVERNANCE OF SCIENCE …

289

country’s institutional strengths, which could catalyze a breakthrough in the Colombian development path, to which an effective and democratic governance of the STI, with historical perspective, can contribute widely. 11.2.2

Problems Addressed

In the Colombian context, there is a dominant one: the vicious circle of low demand for knowledge and minimal legitimacy for its production, implying very low though dynamic knowledge production, wich effect is the backwardness of the economy and society. The issue of this research contributes solving directly is the inadequacy of the STI governance model in terms of weaknesses in capacities and capabilities for the formulation of a State policy, intersectoral and multilevel strategic coordination, and the existence of agency and capture problems. The Vicious Circle: Weak Demand for Knowledge-Poor Legitimacy-Limited Scientific Production-Backwardness In Colombia, there is a weak demand for knowledge—advanced and traditional—from the productive and social sectors, due to economic, political and cultural causes, which, in turn, does not legitimize or justify a greater effort to generate such knowledge, implying a limited but dynamic knowledge generation, which maintains stagnation of the productive and social sector (Arocena & Sutz, 2017). Paradoxically, it is precisely that knowledge what can contribute raising the productivity and competitiveness of the productive sector, improving the quality of public and social services (Montenegro, 2018). 11.2.3

Emerging Knowledge Approaches to STI Management

According to Kulhmann (2017), governance is a flexible and under construction concept that highlights the relationships between actors, resources, the rules of the game, and government support mechanisms. Governance also includes a type of process that generates consensus-based commitment following the desired direction. This chapter adopts a mixture of multiple conceptual approaches, coherent on the topics addressed: (1) interaction between theory, public policy and practice; (2) transformative innovation policy; (3) the various

290

I. MONTENEGRO-TRUJILLO

failures: market, system and State; (4) the knowledge democratization approach; (5) mission-oriented research; and (6) and the strategic governance framework for R&D-related policies. The aforementioned explanatory theory of the failure or success of the countries is coupled to the above. These approaches, however, require taking into account elements of the Colombian and Latin American contexts, which imply nuances and, even, modifications to those. Perspective of the Interaction Between Theory, Public Policy and Practice Considering the metaphor of the dancers: theory, policy and practice (Kuhlmann, 2017) this approach is based on the identification of opportunities and failures in the STI governance models in developing countries, relying on the identification of agreements or discrepancies between the “dancers”. In advanced countries, policy makers dance with the country’s theorists; whereas in developing countries, policy makers very often dance (we dance) with theorists from abroad, which leads to the conclusion that asymmetries in the globalized world also appear in the ideological and academic realms. Transformative Innovation Policy The transformative innovation policy, TIP, is based on the multilevel perspective, MLP, which includes three levels: the sociotechnical landscape, the sociotechnical regime, and technological niches; it proposes elements of a fundamental transformative change or innovation of systems and a roadmap (Geels, 2007). In the MLP, the change in sociotechnical systems is based on the socalled transition routes, defined as the results produced by various alignments between developments at the three levels (Schot & Steinmuller, 2016). Market, System and State Failures In the STI field, market failures may occur as long as the operation of the market does not motivate sufficient investment in these matters, so State must act. In turn, there are two types of market failures: the so-called knowledge appropriation problem, as the case of entrepreneurs not investing in scientific research for its results are widely disclosed, not generating short-term profitability; and coordination problems, since

11

ADEQUACY OF GOVERNANCE OF SCIENCE …

291

obtaining technological innovations requires linking companies, universities, research centers and the State (BID, 2014). System failures are defined as the gap between the demands coming from actors and elements of the system and the current available supply. In Colombia, one of the examples is the situation derived from the so-called “inverted pyramid” in which the supply of technical and technological training is much lower than the corresponding latent demand. Another flaw is the weak linkage between companies and the national innovation system (Teubal, 2008). State failures are: the dynamic inconsistency, defined, in developing countries context, as the real trend in the decisions of politicians to make investments that produce benefits and visible returns in the short term—period of government—instead of doing it in the fields of science and innovation, whose visibility and returns occur beyond periods of government. Agency problems are those that arise when the leadership functions of the long-term policy and the execution of part or all of such policy coexist in the same institution, which, at the moment of evaluating the impact of the policy, generates an incompatibility where the same institution is judge and party (Benavente, 2006; Consejo Nacional de Innovación, 2007). The Democratization of Knowledge In the conceptual framework called democratization of knowledge, it is proposed that for the improvement of the quality of life, the incorporation of advanced knowledge and technology and highly qualified personnel is required as a necessary condition. A definition of democratization of advanced knowledge refers to those processes that imply the expansion of citizen participation and a wider distribution of its benefits. In the long term, the expansion of the distribution of benefits of advanced knowledge implies the expansion of citizen participation, and this requires capacities to engage in activities and decisions related to STI, which in turn justifies the expansion of higher education (Arocena & Sutz, 2017). Mission-Oriented Research From a very broad case study of the United States (Mazzucato, 2015), Brazil, the European Union, and others, this approach is characterized, in the first instance, as systemic public policies that are nourished by the frontier of knowledge with in order to achieve specific purposes, or “great

292

I. MONTENEGRO-TRUJILLO

science to face great problems” (Mazzucato, 2018) Página para la referencia en comillas. A mission can set clear and ambitious goals that can only be achieved through a portfolio of interdisciplinary research and innovation projects and support measures, such as policy interventions, deployment actions and end-user participation. Strategic Governance of R&D Related Policies Strategic governance is defined as a governance system capable of responding effectively to changes in circumstances by developing longterm visions and formulating and implementing higher policy objectives (Whitelegg et al., 2008). This approach contains four dimensions and their corresponding categories: (1) the scope of R&D policy focuses on explicitly formulated strategies; (2) the ability of the governance system to design and implement strategic policies (internal and external coordination); (3) the ability to respond to the needs of interested groups reacting quickly and efficiently in response to changes in the system; (4) quality assurance of R&D policy and refers to the ability of the system to assess the impact of its policies and learn from it. 11.2.4

The Ideal Operationalized Test Pattern

The research design begins from the comparison between the findings and a reference model, which, in this case, is a typical common ideal model that has been widely used in studies of innovation policies in the OECD countries. The model includes 4 levels (graph No.1): high level of transversal policy; coordination between ministries; coordinating detailed policy development; and coordination between agents carrying out research and innovation and the different sectors of the state structure. 11.2.5

The central Question of the Study

The central question is this: what are the essential change (s) required in the governance scheme of Colombia, in order to support overcoming the aforementioned problem? The study adopts a conceptual framework that, firstly, considers the institutional dimension as a priority regarding success or failure of the countries; secondly, six knowledge approaches on science, technology and

11

ADEQUACY OF GOVERNANCE OF SCIENCE …

293

innovation public policy are taken into account; and finally, the study uses the model of ideal contrast commonly used by the OECD in this type of studies. The methodology includes a review of second-hand information, systematization of the author’s experience and interviews with actors in the system. A comprehensive diagnosis is made out of the system of STI, including that of Colciencias. There are also several suggested changes and adjustments in the governance scheme, as well as policy and academic recommendations.

11.3

Diagnosis of STI Governance in Colombia

Three exercises are carried out here: the first one consists of addressing key issues with multiple conceptual approaches; second, the results of the previous exercise are compared with the governance model used by the OECD; and finally, the diagnosis of Colciencias is made. 11.3.1

Multiple Approach

The conceptual input for the diagnosis is the alignment approach “theorypolicy-practice”. Within that approach, the central analysis relies on the (dancing) level of politics, insofar as the issue of governance refers mainly to the process of achieving management of STI policy. So, the macro level is selected as the starting point for developing the diagnosis. Market failures. In recent years, at the macro level the Colombian STI policy has placed greater emphasis on linking R&D with competitiveness, which in practice has not been done, mostly maintaining a trend toward applied research. Nonetheless, innovation and support for innovation have been weakened as budget allocation has been greatly reduced. An overview allows here to conclude that there is a lack of alignment between policy and practice, since the latter has weakened throughout the value chain of research/innovation, while the processes and mechanisms to support R&D&i lack comprehensiveness, duplicate themselves and have scarce and diminishing resources. In relation to this, the dominant (and pernicious) theory (in the Latin American context) is that of the Washington consensus. That theory presupposes that importation of technology incorporated into capital and the negotiation of patents, makes possible to achieve productivity growth, in a context of reduction of the State through privatization, control of macro variables and commercial integration.

294

I. MONTENEGRO-TRUJILLO

System failures . At the macro level, one of the most prominent flaws is the so-called “inverted pyramid” in technical and technological higher education due to the gap between a reduced and unequal supply and a greater latent demand. State failures . Macro level: the dynamic inconsistency is clearly perceived in reality from the low political will to achieve a required threshold of public investment in basic and applied research and innovation, which also contributes to stimulating private investment. Political authorities have always preferred to make other public investments with a shorter-term return. This can be seen by the minimum historic level of public investment in R&D and in scientific, technological and innovation activities, STIA, as a proportion of GDP: 50% below the average for Latin America and equivalent to one-eighth of the average investment of OECD countries—an organization that Colombia has recently joined. All this converges with the predominant framework on development, which does not assume the centrality of the creation and investment in national R&D capacities, against the theoretical approaches suggested by the First Science, Education and Development Mission—“Misión de Sabios”—in 1995, which highlighted the crucial role of research in its contribution strengthening of democracy and economic development. 11.3.2

Comparison with the Ideal OECD Model

Level 1: High Level of Cross-Cutting Policy This level is practically absent due to the fact that the National Council for Science and Technology was abolished by Law 1286 of 2009, and in practice, this kind of scenario for directing and coordinating the system and advising the high government was not replaced. Still, a National Competitiveness and Innovation Commission operates, partially assuming the role of advising the central government. There is consensus regarding the weakness of the STI system and the absence of a national STI policy that should also be integrated with educational and productive development policies (Academia de Ciencias, 2018). Level 2: Intersectoral and Inter-Ministerial Coordination It is necessary to underline the role played by the National Programs of Science, technology and innovation—with their Program Councils—over the last few years, as broad areas of scientific and technological problems.

11

ADEQUACY OF GOVERNANCE OF SCIENCE …

295

Those programs were considered, at that time, as the main components of the system (Salazar, 2013). Nevertheless, these programs are not administrative structures, but coordination mechanisms that, despite not having formality, they provide counsellors who take an oath to execute a public function for the country. In Colombia, Colciencias directors have complied to some extent with the decisions made by the Councils. The Executive Committee of the National Competitiveness and Innovation Commission is the coordinating and directing body of the National Competitiveness and Innovation Commission. Within the framework of the Executive Committee, various technical committees are formed to take on various topics, one of which is the Joint Technical Committee on Innovation. Level 3: Coordination of Detailed Policy Development According to law 1286 of 2009, Colciencias is an institution of a hybrid or dual nature: ministerial status and executing agency. Regarding the first, the law allows Colciencias, as the governing body of the STI sector, to lead the definition of the State policy, which, during the last two decades, has not been able to achieve agreement. Still, as an executing agency, Colciencias carries out a series of calls in support of research, training of personnel at the Doctorate level, social appropriation of science and knowledge, and, for more than 15 years, business innovation. Regarding the management of the STI at the regional level, it should be mentioned that only two regions (Medellín and Santander) have governance structures moderately adapted to the needs of their respective regional societies. Public Ministry, academics, and private organizations agree on the diagnosis that the so-called STI Fund of the general royalty system has serious design problems such as: the faulty indicator of unsatisfied basic needs included in the royalty distribution formula, the actual operation of the rules of the game producing forms of regional clientelism in the selection of projects at the entrance,2 the execution of projects by organizations different from those that had formulated the proposals, and the execution of projects with dubious classification in STI (Contraloría General de la Nación, 2016).

2 As the case of Mexico, where it was tried to achieve changes based on laws and regulations, without taking into account the real rules of the game.

296

I. MONTENEGRO-TRUJILLO

Level 4: Coordination Between Agents that Carry Out Research and Innovation Departments act with a high degree of lack of coordination: the STI Departmental Committees and the Regional Competitiveness Commissions. The former is being strengthened since 2017 through Decree 584 of 2017 that reinforces clear guidance and decision-making mechanisms (Colciencias, 2019). 11.3.3

Diagnosis of Colciencias

This diagnosis focuses on the current situation, concerning the background and developments that have occurred since the transformation of Colciencias into an Administrative Department by the Law 1286 of 2009, until its transformation in STI Ministry, in January 2020, in terms of functions performed, internal coordination and service to beneficiaries and relationships with them. Among the causes of the institution’s uncertain performance after its transformation into an Administrative Department, it is worth mentioning, in the first place, the fact that its organizational structure has remained, in essence, unchanged until its transformation. Second, its budget remained low and has decreased in real terms for the last seven years. Third, clientelism relationships and its negative effects and consequences, broke into the institution, manifesting itself through the high turnover of its directors and executives, putting at risk knowledge accumulation and all the experience achieved over almost fifty years. The entity has had a weak performance formulating and promoting policies for it and has had no internal capacity to propose long-term policies. In terms of execution, still some positive results of the strategy of social appropriation of science should be highlighted, despite the scarcity of available resources. However, it is worth mentioning that the promotion of human resource training at the postgraduate level, combined with the great fall in public resources to support research and innovation, in fact implies a great threat such as a probable “brain drain”, mostly in the cases of people trained abroad. Such high-level training can also produce underemployment or unemployment in terms of the people trained in Colombia, all of which constitutes a strategic error for the country. On the other hand, the promotion of the application of scientific and technological developments for the productive sector has been hampered,

11

ADEQUACY OF GOVERNANCE OF SCIENCE …

297

due, among other factors, to the fact that regulations continue encouraging scientific production and, to a much lesser extent, obtaining of products for technological development and innovation. The promotion of private investment for science and innovation has been blocked by the minimal public budget and its increasing reduction, which does not meet the required threshold from which private investment can be energized. Regarding the function of monitoring and evaluating the impact of policies and programs, the institution has not developed strategies in this regard, unlike the evaluation efforts done in the past concerning the results and impact of medium and long-term programs. This institutional weaknesses have generated a distance between Colciencias and the academic community, maintaining a weak link with the business and government sectors, a loss of influence in the territories, depriving it of making substantial contributions to the formulation of a State policy, all of which can be summed up in the fact that Colciencias does not exercise its stewardship role regarding the STI field. In contrast, its contribution to the articulation of the actors is modest and is constantly decreasing.

11.4 Proposal of Adaptation and Change in the Governance of STI It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat. (Deng Xiaoping)

This section develops proposals for two components of an STI governance system: the creation of an STI National Council, and changes in the structure of the STI Ministry, which began to function in January 2020, after the transformation of Colciencias. Likewise, adjustments and modifications are proposed here concerning the instances, links, and processes that relate to those two components.

298

I. MONTENEGRO-TRUJILLO

It is convenient, at this point, to make a distinction between state policies and government policies.3 The first is the main responsibility of the STI Council and the second is the Ministry. 11.4.1

Creation of the National Council for Science, Technology and Innovation

For all the above, there is a central contradiction when addressing an ideal state of the dynamics of the STI system: a link with the political system is highly desired, whereas by no means is it desired its subjection to clientelism. The proposed STI governance structure must fully overcome the contradiction, not aiming to arrange a degree of compensation—tradeoff—between the parameters of the conflict—i.e. link to politics, and surrender to clientelism. For this purpose, a key issue for the improvement of STI national system performance is the support of innovation bureaucracies in two organizational forms: one type that includes a network of private and public actors, and it is typically small and fluid and deals with new emerging issues and sectors; and another type that is larger, based on expertise and skills, more hierarchical, aiming to enhance existing capabilities; both for the delivery of the agile stability of the entrepreneurial State (Kattel et al., 2019). Creation of a National Council for Science, Technology and Innovation Given the dynamic inconsistency and its detrimental effects, and the aforementioned problem of the vicious circle—low demand, precarious legitimacy of knowledge and backwardness—it is necessary the creation, by Law, of a public—private body, the National Council of science, technology and innovation for Sustainable Development (NCSTI), whose

3 A State policy in STI is a political agreement at the highest level that contains a long-term vision that contributes to the development of the country, defines priority themes in science, technology and innovation (education), in response to the challenges and opportunities derived from global and Latin American macro trends, needs, problems, opportunities and issues valued by actors and communities, based on a knowledge of the context and the forecast of its evolution; translated into missions, interdisciplinary programs, reforms and/or adaptation of the institutional framework. Government policy, on the other hand, although framed in State policy, with specificities and nuances according to the citizen mandate, has a scope related to the mandate of the current government.

11

ADEQUACY OF GOVERNANCE OF SCIENCE …

299

mission and main functions will be leading the formulation and approval of a State policy in STI, its integration with the National Development Plan of the respective government, as well as the coordination and integration with other policies sectoral and territorial development plans.4 The National Council also evaluates the impact of STI policy and its components, facilitating its redesign and adjustment. This council will monitor and promote consistency between policy formulation, implementation, evaluation and budget management. The STI Ministry will be the Technical Secretariat of the Council. The Council will have a dual nature: advising the Presidency and high government, and leading the design of State policy. It will be the highest authority of the STI system, being a governing body that integrates different sectors and regions of the Country. The formulation of State policy must be supported by a strategic intelligence function carried out by an existing institution, which is restructured to develop such function, or by a new entity—resulting from the merging of organizations.5 The work of the 2nd Mission of Sages (Experts) must nurture the mentioned State policy, based on three national challenges, five missions and thirty six comprehensive programs that imply a new modality that overcomes the traditional disciplinary approach, facilitating the multi-inter-transdisciplinary approaches that they require for strategic governance (Minciencias, 2020).6 The Council will be chaired by the President of the Republic, and will be made up of the four ministries that are closest to the research/innovation value chain, including Science, Technology and Innovation, Education, Finance, Agriculture and Rural Development, Culture, Health, Environment, Labor, Commerce-industry-tourism, ICT, Mines and Energy. In addition, there will be four representatives, in each case, from the scientific and business community, appointed by 4 The positive and negative experiences of South Korea, Mexico and Chile are assimilated here. 5 In this regard, it is worth examining the performance of institutions such as policy centers or think tanks in STI; for example, STEPI in South Korea, the Center for Management and Strategic Studies in Brazil, NISTEP in Japan, CASTED in China, and the Center for Development Research (ZEF) in Germany. One of the functions of these centers is to carry out research on STI policy issues in order to base public policies on objective knowledge. 6 In December 2019 the Mission of Sages delivered the first Report with recommendations with a 2030 horizon.

300

I. MONTENEGRO-TRUJILLO

the Presidency as from proposals presented by their organizations; and two representatives of organized civil society, appointed by the Presidency as from proposals presented by the respective organizations, thus ensuring autonomy, stability of policies and technical quality in the system leadership. Members will have a fixed term and there will be staggered rotation. For the appointment of the first Council, the President will consider proposals presented by an ad hoc Committee made up of some members of the Mission of Wise Men representing the sectors described above (Academia colombiana de ciencias exactas, físicas y naturales, 2018). The selection criteria of the proposed people and their designation will be meritocratic. Secondly, the reconfiguration of the Councils of the national STI Programs, will have a mission oriented approach with interdisciplinary scope, including representatives of civil society.7 Problems (Opportunities) That (the Council) Solve The Council aims to overcome state failures such as the dynamic inconsistency—i.e. preference for investments of immediate and short-term returns—opening an opportunity for the academy to develop theoretical insights on the STI policy by considering the particularities of the Colombian context. It also contributes to solving system failures by matching the supply of technical and technological education to the demands of the productive sector and facilitating the link between the university and companies. Finally, it aims to overcome market failures, achieving a strategic balance in public support for the various links in the research/innovation value chain, based on a shared vision of the country, in terms of training, research and innovation. 11.4.2

Central Aspects and Changes in the Structure of the Ministry of STI

First, this section deals with some substantive aspects related to the design and implementation of the Ministry. Secondly, the section makes some comments related to the structure and functions of the Ministry that began operating in January 2020.

7 Based on the five missions proposed by the Mission of Sages (Experts).

11

ADEQUACY OF GOVERNANCE OF SCIENCE …

301

Central Aspects of the Structure and Functions of the Ministry First, among the political and legal matters, with reflections and management implications, it is worth mentioning the matter related to the adaptation and restructuring of the overall staff. The approval and implementation of a specific Administrative Career System is required for the personnel providing their services in the entities that make up the National System of Science, Technology and Innovation, in accordance with the provisions of article 53 of the Political Constitution, article 18 of Law 1751 of 2015 and article 4 of Law 909 of 2004 (Asocolciencias, 2018). This administrative career should include public officials up to the level of the Directors. This prevents the incursion of clientelism into a Ministry that must always strengthen its technical capacity. Second, given the weak demand for knowledge from the productive and social sectors, the management and financing of the strategy of social appropriation of knowledge that is being updated should be programmed, in order to lead the management of a supported cultural change through a process of sectoral and multilevel coordination. This work could constitute the mission of a Directorate in the Ministry. Thirdly, there is an urgent need to prepare a future Directorate for a decentralized management of the STI, in charge of managing resources of the STI-Royalties as well as strengthening and creating processes and management units in the sub-national spaces, in close internal coordination with the other units of the new Ministry, therefore, supporting the work of the STI National Program Councils. Fourthly, it is necessary to prepare a proposal for the financing of research, technological development, technology-based entrepreneurship and innovation, in terms of four sources: national budget as a structural source, external credit endorsed by the Nation, linking of resources from the General Royalties System for STI, and International Cooperation; and the strengthening of developmental banking with mechanisms of “patient capital” and an adequate portfolio of instruments boosting innovation and innovative entrepreneurship. Within the framework of the STI’s strategic governance, the Ministry is an executing agency for state and government policy, with capabilities to contribute with the design of the former, therefore, leading the formulation and execution of the latter. The impact evaluation of both is under the leadership of the STI National Council. The functions proposed here for the Ministry and its strategic areas of action will be discussed bellow. There will also be presented some key

302

I. MONTENEGRO-TRUJILLO

Ministry contributions to overcome various problems so as to take advantage of opportunities; then the organizational structure of STI Ministry will be presented. Functions of the Ministry of STI According to its executing essence, the general attributes that the Ministry must assume in terms of a STI strategic governance are: leading internal coordination with other sectors and levels of government policy implementation; achieving capacities to respond to the needs of stakeholders and reacting quickly and efficiently to changes in the system (Whitelegg, 2008). Internal Coordination and with Other Sectors The functions are: • Lead the formulation and alignment of the STI government policy. Here the contribution to the formulation of the State Policy led by the NCSTI, and its leadership for the formulation of the STI National Plan for the period of government is included. • Promote and, in some cases, lead the integration of STI policy with other public policies, through the following actions: – Exercise the Technical Secretariat of the STI National Council – Exercise the Technical Secretariat of the STI National Programs. – Exercise the Technical Secretariat of the STI Interministerial Committee (Permanent Committee of the Council of Ministers) responsible for the implementation of government policy. • Promote a dynamic and balanced development of the research value chain—basic and applied research, technological development, technology-based entrepreneurship and innovation—in coordination with its associated and attached agencies and centers, through the adaptation of a portfolio of mechanisms and instruments. • Promote a mutual transfer of knowledge and technology between the actors of the system and those abroad. • Manage the attainment and access to financial resources to promote the generation and application of knowledge to society, the economy and the environment.

11

ADEQUACY OF GOVERNANCE OF SCIENCE …

303

• Lead international cooperation in STI, scientific diplomacy and the attainment of external credit to support the development of the STI national system. • Ensure the scientific and technological heritage of the country. Responsiveness to Beneficiaries and Changes in the Environment The functions are: • Promote the social appropriation of knowledge, and in particular, the demand for knowledge by the social and economic sectors. The above with a perspective tending to promote a cultural change toward a knowledge society. • Promote the education and training of personnel and the acquisition of infrastructure and other resources to carry out activities throughout the research value chain. • Design, experiment and implement participatory processes for the design and management of plans, programs and mechanisms to support research, technological development and technology-based entrepreneurship. Experimentation and implementation of public— private partnership modalities are also included here. • Anticipate the emergence of facts and events that may affect the execution of the policy and its design, by strengthening capacities in strategic foresight. • Promote the territorial management of the STI and the interregional coordination to optimize the creation of capacities and the impact of knowledge. • Contribute to the strengthening of the STI national system based on the systematization of the experience in the implementation of the policy and the introduction of adjustments to management, based on the results of the impact evaluation. • Support the definition and adjustment of the Mission oriented areas of the National Programs, and the priorities in aspects concerning implementation. • Promote open science to strengthen participation in the generation of knowledge and to access its benefits.

304

I. MONTENEGRO-TRUJILLO

The Problems (Opportunities) It Solves This design of the Ministry, in terms of state failures, at the macro level, overcomes the problem of agency posed in theory—i.e. compliance in the same institution with the functions of formulation, execution of policy and evaluation of policy—, insofar as the Ministry is solely responsible for executing the State policy. The implementation of a specific Administrative Career System for staff aims to neutralize clientelism relationships and, above all, to achieve excellence and meritocracy in the performance of public servants in their work. At the meso level, the creation of an STI Decentralization Directorate, with the premise of objective knowledge of the rules of the game at the territorial level, prevents capture problems by agents who do not require public support or agents having a criminal intent. Regarding system failures, the Ministry contributes to the creation and strengthening of the link “university / research center / industry”, by supporting the process of technology and knowledge transfer. Regarding market failures, the Ministry, by promoting—with a national vision—a balanced development of the research value—chain, will achieve greater support for R&D, while its projection will be extended to the social and environmental sectors, exceeding the approaches that try to focus efforts just on competitiveness. Proposed Organizational Structure Comments on the Current Structure and Functions of the Ministry The current structure and functions of the new STI Ministry were defined by Decree 2226 of December 2019. Its analysis allows the following suggestions for changes to be made. Among the absences in the content of the Decree, there is no allusion to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as a political agreement at a global level against the threat of human extinction, which constitutes a powerful guide to steer STI policies, due to its transversality in the Sustainable Development Goals and its long-term vision. Related to the above, in the content of the mentioned Decree there is no reference to ethics, bioethics and integrity in scientific work, all of which are crucial aspects in the face of the complex dilemmas and problems arising in this area, which requires principles and values shared by the citizenship, who must have the last word on the social impact of science and innovation. These shortcomings must be overcome.

11

ADEQUACY OF GOVERNANCE OF SCIENCE …

305

On the other hand, it is necessary to highlight here other substantive issues in the content of the decree deserving attention and debate and, consequently, need to be corrected and overcome: the emphasis on the contribution of the STI to productivity and competitiveness, the inclusion of productivity in the objectives and functions of the Ministry and its dependencies; the superficial treatment of the Social Appropriation of knowledge; and the agency problem generated by assuming the function of evaluating the impact of public policy.

11.5

Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

The creation—strengthened reestablishment—of the National Council of science, technology, and innovation is needed for strengthening the national STI system. Thus, capacities for the formulation of State policy and political advocacy at the highest level are improved. Therefore, the legitimacy of knowledge generation is increased. The action of the National Council of Science, Technology and Innovation could become a pioneering leadership in Colombia for the appropriation of the strategic foresight in the central government. This Council is the main receiver of the recommendations of the second Mission of Sages, from which the State policy in STI will be formulated in a concerted manner. Nevertheless, a sufficient condition for consolidating the STI national system should include an STI public policy component that catalyzes high levels of dynamism in innovation bureaucracy, providing it with capacities and capabilities for agile change but also for stability, crucially delivering both at the same time (Kattel et al., 2019). In particular, the proposed Research and Innovation National Institutes by the Second Mission of Sages (Misión de Sabios ) should act as a Weberian type II organisation, as members of charismatic, dynamic and agile networks, often innovating in emerging policy areas, and coalescing with Weberian type I organizations: professional, centrally governed, stable, predictable, staffed with high level (technical) experts, strong enough to enhance private sector innovation capabilities (Kattel et al., 2019). The creation of the Ministry with the proposed characteristics contributes to overcoming the vicious circle mentioned, through a Directorate for the Social Appropriation of Knowledge, and internal coordination between the Directorates of the Ministry, leading the “cultural battle” for the incorporation of knowledge in daily life. Likewise, the creation of a Territorial Management Directorate whose vision is

306

I. MONTENEGRO-TRUJILLO

decentralization and the strengthening of the STI advisory bodies in the territorial area, will definitively promote the decentralization process, for which it could consider the transformative innovation policy approach. The Ministry’s scope of action is, on the one hand, leadership in the strategic coordination of the execution of the State Policy in the term of government, and, on the other, facilitating and promoting its expression and enrichment in the territories, which contributes to a greater alignment of the actors with the government policy in STI. These wide-ranging changes require an update and expansion of the existing regulations, through an updated law of Science, Technology and Innovation. Finally, it is necessary to address the issue of citizen participation in the management of STI policies, given the conviction of the benefits of it in the framework of a concept of sustainable human development. Regarding this, the focus on the democratization of knowledge will make a crucial contribution.

UniversiƟes

Research Councils And Academies

Ministry of EducaƟon

R&D InsƟtutes

Technology & InnovaƟon Agencies

Ministry of Industry

Government

Programme Contractors

Support Programme Agencies

Other Sectoral Ministries

Fig. 11.1 Ideal typical model of Governance (Source Modified from Bell (2002))

Research & InnovaƟon performers

Level 4

Detailed Policy Development co-ordinaƟon

Level 3

Ministry MissionCentred coordinaƟon

Level 2

High-level Cross-cuƫng policy

Level 1

Parliament

Producers: Firms Farms Hospitals etc

Policy Council

11 ADEQUACY OF GOVERNANCE OF SCIENCE …

307

308

I. MONTENEGRO-TRUJILLO

National Conseil of STI

Energy, industry and health NP

Ministry of CIT

Water and climate change NP

Ministry of Education

Bioeconomy, Biodiversity & creativity economy NP

Ministry of STI

Ministry of ICT

Agency: Francisco José de Caldas Fund

Knowledge, Education & Social inclusión NP

Other Ministries

Energy, industry and health NP

Innpulsa

Another national and territorial actors: Universities, RDC, firms, NGOs

Fig. 11.2 National System of Science, Technology and Innovation (Note NP means National Program)

References Academia colombiana de ciencias exactas, físicas y naturales. (2018). Sobre el Consejo Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. Bogotá D.C. Academia de Ciencias. (2018). Desafíos para el 2030: ciencia, tecnología, educación y medio ambiente. Bogotá D.C. Acemoglu, D., & Robinson J. (2012). Porqué fracasan los países? DEUSTO. Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2017). Science, technology and innovation for what? In S. Kulhmann & G. Ordoñez (Eds.), Research handbook on innovation governance for emerging countries. Edward Elgar. Asocolciencias. (2018). Un ministerio de ciencia y tecnología: técnico y merotocrático. Bell, M. (2002). Knowledge resources, innovation capabilities and sustained competitiveness in Thailand: Transforming the policy process, Report on the

11

ADEQUACY OF GOVERNANCE OF SCIENCE …

309

National Science and Technology Development Agency, Bangkok, Brighton: SPRU. Benavente, J. M. (2006). Antecedentes para el diseño de una política tecnológica nacional. Universidad de Chile. BID. (2014). ¿Cómo repensar el desarrollo productivo? BID. Cámara de Representantes de Colombia. (2018). Proyecto de Ley 111 de 2017. Colciencias. (6 de Noviembre de 2019). Colciencias. Obtenido de https://www. colciencias.gov.co/normatividad/decreto-584-2017: www.colciencias.gov.co Comisión Asesora Presidencial. (2013). Institucionalidad: ciencia, tecnología e innovación - Informe Final. Comisión Presidencial Ciencia para el Desarrollo. (2015). Un sueño compartido para el futuro de Chile - Informe Final. Consejo Nacional de Innovación. (2007). Hacia una estrategia nacional de innovación para la competitividad Vol I. Contraloría General de la Nación. (2016). Evaluación del Fondo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. Contraloría General de la Nación. Crespi, G., Fernández-Arias, E., & Stein. (2014). Cómo repensar el Desarrollo Productivo? BID. Dutrénit, G., & Puchet, M. (2017). Tensions of science, technology and innovation policy in Mexico: analytical models, institutional evolution, national capabilities and governance. In S. Kuhlmann & G. Ordoñez (Eds.), Research handbook on innovation governance for emerging economies (pp. 205–231). Edward Elgar. Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico, Lalics. (2014). Sistemas de innovación para un desarrollo inclusivo, La experiencia Latinoamericana. Geels, F. W. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417. Kattel, R., Drechsler, W., & Karo, E. (2019). Innovation bureaucracies: How agile stability creates the entrepreneurial State. UCL IIP. Kuhlmann Stefan, O. G. (2017). Research handbook on innovation gobernance for emerging economies. Edward Elgar. Mazzucato, M. (2015). The entrepreneurial state. Public Affairs. Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented research & innovation in the European Union. European Commission. Minciencias. (2020). COLOMBIA: HACIA UNA SOCIEDAD DEL CONOCIMIENTO. Volúmen I. Montenegro, I. (2015). NOTAS SOBRE: LA POLÍTICA DE CIENCIA, TECNOLOGÍA E INNOVACIÓN EN COREA DEL SUR. Montenegro, I. (2018). Reflexiones sobre la adopción de: la política de innovación trasnformativa y las transiciones profundas. OECD. (2013). Colombia: Implementing good governance. OECD.

310

I. MONTENEGRO-TRUJILLO

Orozco, L. A., Villaveces, J. L., Ordoñez-Matamoros, G., & Moreno, G. (2019). Innovation policy and governance networks on national innovation systems. In G. Catalano, C. Daraio, M. Gregory, H. Moed & G. Ruocco (Eds.), 17th International Conference on Scientometrics & Informetrics, ISSI 2019—Proceedings (Vol 1, pp. 541–553). Sapienza University. Available at http://www.issi-society.org/publications/issi-conference-procee dings/proceedings-of-issi-2019/. Robinson, J. (2013). Another 100 years of solitude? Current History. 112(751), 43-48. Salazar, M. (2013). Gobernabilidad del SNCyT. El papel de los consejos de los programas nacionales de ciencia y tecnología: En Salazar, M (ed.) Colciencias cuarenta años. Entre la legitimidad, la normatividad y la práctica (Bogotá: Observatorio Colombiano de Ciencia y Tecnología - OCyT). Schot, J., & Steinmuller, W. (2016). Framing innovation policy for transformative. SPRU. Teubal, M. (2008). Direct promotion of ‘commercial’ innovation (Ci) In least developed countries (LDCs): A systems evolutionary perspective (S/E) (UNCTAD Background Paper No. 6). Geneva. Velez, J. R. (1998). Colombia: la modernidad postergada. Argumentos. Villaveces, J. L. (1991). Modernidad y Ciencia en Colombia. Colciencias. Bogotá. Whitelegg, K., Weber, M., Hofer, R., & Polt, W. (2008). Strategic governance of R&D related policies. Erawatch.

CHAPTER 12

Innovation Financing: A Proposal to Strengthen the Colombian Setting Jaime Humberto Sierra-González

12.1

Innovation Financing in Colombia: A Succinct Characterisation

Appropriate funding is a key driver behind innovation at both micro and macro levels in any national and international setting whatsoever. Colombia illustrates a case whose specificities cannot be explained by extant theories (Sierra, 2014) and can be, therefore, used to analyse the failures of current explanations and the need for a fresh approach to

An earlier version of this document was presented at the 2019 “Congreso Internacional Gobernanza de la Ciencia y la Innovación: Hacia el desarrollo inclusivo”. J. H. Sierra-González (B) Pontificia Universidad Javeriana—Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Ordónez-Matamoros et al. (eds.), Policy and Governance of Science, Technology, and Innovation, Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80832-7_12

311

312

J. H. SIERRA-GONZÁLEZ

such phenomena that are likely to affect both developing and developed economies. Colombia, the third-largest Latin American economy (fifth in the continent) and latest OECD member, has a formal national science/technology/innovation (STI) system in place. However, manufacturing companies that bet on innovation are not numerous, are mostly big, belong to sparsely populated technology-intensive sectors, and do mostly incremental innovation. In fact, Colombia is the tail light by OECD standards (Pardo & Cotte, 2018). Colombia spends a meagre 0.3% of GDP on STI (R&D funding from all public and private sources) and 0.61% if all STI-related activities are taken into account; while the government contributes 30% of STI activities funding, private funding reaches 70%. Firms contribute 53% and higher education institutions (HEIs), non-government organisations (NGOs), research centres and government organisations account for the remaining 47%, being Minciencias (the so-called innovation system “hub”, formery Colciencias, just recently turned into the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation) the main national seed funder and regional governors’ offices the suppliers of oil/minerals’ royalties funding (FCTI-SGR). Furthermore, the effectiveness and impact of public funding seems rather limited (García & Prado, 2019; Malaver & Vargas, 2020). This “systemic arrangement” may mutate given the recent transformation of Colciencias into the Colombian Ministry for Science, Technology and Innovation. However, effective implications of such a transformation remain to be seen (Chaparro, 2019). So far, it has not been so. As for the Colombian financial system, only a few first and second-tier banks may eventually fund STI projects. Venture capital is not abundant and faces a number of serious restrictions (Jiménez, 2008), and the stock market is small and underdeveloped. Furthermore, most Colombian innovative companies resort to retained earnings, firstly. Only when internal funding is not feasible, they do attempt to get loans from commercial banks and, very marginally, from suppliers/customers (advanced/delayed payments) (Barona Rivera, & Aguilera, 2015; Barona, Rivera, Aguilera, et al., 2015; Sierra et al., 2009). External funding seems more relevant for small/mid-sized companies (García et al., 2013) may be due to their low liquidity. Hence, Colombian innovative firms exhibit a pecking-order funding preference consisting of internal liquidity (including funds from corporate

12

INNOVATION FINANCING: A PROPOSAL …

313

group), commercial banks loans, and public funding (there are about six sources available, but not more than two are typically used) (Fig. 12.1). International bank leverage and bond funding are infrequent (Barona Rivera & Aguilera, 2015; Sierra et al., 2009). Unlike standard cases, Colombian innovative firms do not like very much resorting to fresh equity (ANIF, 2018). This depicts a paradox: Companies invest very little in STI, but they prefer internal funding; also, low-liquidity companies prefer going to more costly local banks than using more convenient government subsidies or low-rate credits. Moreover, such companies rarely seek fresh equity, except for some over-the-counter (OTC) sources (e.g., start-ups). This leads to wonder about how are decisions made and what the roles of firm CEO/CFO/CSO are in such regard.1 This paradox leads to several questions. How well do project owners know the institutional financial layout (IFL)? How often and why do they use external investors or not? Does the existing institutional financial layout meet the needs of innovative sectors and companies? What is the role of firms’ innovation-related strategy? Seemingly, Colombian innovative companies are financially constrained, but do not know nor trust the STI system—particularly its financial actors—well enough. Strangely, they are somehow not interested in taking advantage of available cheaper, relatively specialised funding sources/mechanisms (e.g., Colciencias/Minciencias) as they feel official agencies’ red tape is excessive. However, they go to private banks (generalist funders) where collateral and cost set up a barrier given the information asymmetry (Tables 12.1 and 12.2) (Sierra et al., 2021). A scarce record of accomplishment on both sides and knowledge asymmetries seem to further hinder trust creation, particularly in the case of small and mid-sized enterprises (SMEs) and start-ups (Otalora et al., 2009; Sierra et al., 2009). Connectedly, the available funding sources/mechanisms (e.g., scarce venture capital) and the “rationality” of company management seem to favour cost/profitability-based matching over more strategic motives. Also, no studies about funding supply are available in Colombia. So the primary obstacles to innovation financing seem to regard a rather poor matching environment and mechanisms and, subsequently, 1 Lots remain to be investigated about the way in which other Colombian innovation producers (e.g., HEIs, research centres, technological parks) fund their STI activities.

Project Characteristics Mostly low innovation/uncertainty/risk non-technological product and process projects, developed in-house for both, internal and external usage

Funds Demand Manufacturing companies, mostly small and mid-sized belonging to low R&D intensity sectors and exhibiting low share of highly skilled labour; big enterprises are more innovative Low spending on STI activities Scarce knowledge about markets, regulation (including intellectual property (IP) protection), and technology Most companies are cost oriented and not quite aware of funding availability (even public sources) Strategy motives (first-mover advantage, financial slack, risk/cost/profit sharing preferences and business model) not clearly identified Investees’ behaviour

- Cost-based selection criteria and short-term goals

Exogenous factors

International availability of funding

Table 12.1 A systemic look at STI funding in Colombia

- Profit-led selection mostly

Funds Supply Relatively specialised funders (seed stage on): Colciencias (National STI hub agency), oil/mineral royalties (regional funds), ministries (Agriculture, ICT…), Innpulsa, SENA (Fondo Emprender), Ruta N Generalist funders (late stages): Bancoldex, Findeter (2nd T) and few commercial banks (1st T) A number of national and international private funds, not many support innovation-related risky projects. Most investments directed towards real estate, infrastructure… Bonds and stock not usually traded to raise funding for innovation Institutional investors (pension funds) do not usually put money in innovative companies Angel funding (seed stage on) scarce but available—Four networks: Capitalia Colombia (Medellín), Red Nacional de Ángeles Inversionistas (Bogotá), RaiCap (Medellín), TIC-HubBOG (Bogotá) (2010 operations reached USD 1 mln-2015 operations got over USD 8 mln) OTC (over the counter): Friends/Family/Founder/Fools No public info about corporate JV funds, particularly aimed at innovative projects Investors’ behaviour

314 J. H. SIERRA-GONZÁLEZ

Matching environment and mechanisms Scarce and not easy to identify sources of info about potential partners - Innovation public policy agencies: Minciencias (formerly Colciencias), Bancoldex, Innpulsa - Investors’ associations: Angel investor’s networks, private equity funds association - Small, underdeveloped stock market - Few incubators/accelerators Potential partners relate to one another through individual efforts, public agencies’ calls and, eventually, word-of-mouth references STI actors do not seem well articulated Conditions for interaction Interplay of strategies limited to cost and profit expectations Signals to potentially interested third parties are not usual nor easy to catch

Exogenous factors

Source Adapted from Sierra (2020)

Systemic specificities of milieu Institutional weakness, weak dynamics and deficient coordination at different levels (national/regional/local) of STI

International availability of funding

12 INNOVATION FINANCING: A PROPOSAL …

315

316

J. H. SIERRA-GONZÁLEZ

Table 12.2 Ranking of problems identified by Colombian innovative companies

Obstacles to innovation Shortage of internal resources Uncertainty about demand for innovations Uncertainty about success of project Ease of imitation by third parties Low profitability of innovation Lack of qualified personnel Little information about markets Little information about public support Difficulties in accessing external financing Little information about available technology Few possibilities for cooperation to innovate Difficulty to comply with regulations Low institutional capacity to protect inventions Low offer of testing services and certifications

Percentage 63.4 62.4 57.9 55.8 54.4 49.3 48.2 47.1 45.3 45.1 44.3 41.1 40.8 39.2

Source Sierra (2020)

a very limited set of mostly generalist funders with rigid conditions (e.g., screening criteria) that make adaptive demand-supply matching difficult. Finally, no studies on Colombian innovative firms’ strategy (including their funding strategies) are available, but the scant existing evidence suggests that short-termism and cost-related criteria are at the core of most decisions. Such a limited approach seems in line with the characteristics of the Colombian IFL and the STI system. This characterisation highlights the embryonic state of the STI system concerning one key variable: the development of appropriate innovation funding sources and mechanisms.

12.2 Analytic Discussion of a Paradoxical Situation Sierra et al. (2021) results confirm two facts in the case of Colombian innovative (manufacturing) companies: 1. there is a reversed pecking order concerning the preferences for funding sources (internal funds, national bank loans, suppliers’/customers’ funding, …);

12

INNOVATION FINANCING: A PROPOSAL …

317

2. such pecking order involves a paradox: innovative companies say they do not have enough internal funding, but they express their primary preference for such funding to finance innovation and, even in such a case, they apply for private bank loans rather than for cheaper public funding (subsidies and loans). These facts are not easy to explain because most empirical studies are largely focused on advanced economies and sectors and theoretical literature is far more interested in microanalyses. In fact, most of the conventional financial literature is essentially focused on government incentives, the operation of venture capitalists (generally in developed economies), and the discussion between an optimal capital structure versus a given type of pecking order (Sierra, 2014). Actually, neither typical finance-based theories (Pecking Order Theories—POT, Passive/Active Search Theories—PST and AST)—including POT-based normative variations (Sau, 2007), nor those based on a more “sociological” approach (Catalysing Strategies Theory—CST) can effectively account for the “Colombian paradox” (Table 12.3—Sierra, 2014).2 This all suggests that the extant approaches still lack explanatory power and that the variables included in such analyses cannot wholly explain the

2 In short, while optimal capital structure ideas pretend to be a universal explanation, the POT ranking-based explanation refers to entrepreneurs and firm managers preferring venture capital and business angel funding as the best financing option, followed by government money and IPO investors (which, in many cases, will be VCs as well). Alternative funders (the four Fs) and bank/bond-based debt are out of discussion, although debt mechanisms can be used by mature and big companies. The role and preferences of the funders are not considered at all. On the other hand, PST proposes that entrepreneurs/firms self-select the projects to be proposed to potential investors who will simply deploy their arsenal of “objective” criteria in order to screen the best projects according to their knowledge and preferences. The only other “interaction” instance regards the geographic closeness that is critical in some cases for VC investors’ decision. Instead, AST enlarges the PST proposal by giving VC investors the initiative to seek appropriate projects and by unveiling the funders’ need to comply, in turn, with some demanding specific conditions (a good track record) that influence their roles as fund raisers and investors. Finally, the CST proposal consists of two routes that entrepreneurs/firms can follow to secure funding for their innovative projects: they can resort to existing contacts or, if they do not have any, they can explore, lure and scrutinise the interest of potential investors and craft alternatives to finally establish a successful investment tie. References to the role of funders here seem limited to sending signals about their (true or fake) interest in the projects shown to them (Sierra, 2014).

318

J. H. SIERRA-GONZÁLEZ

Table 12.3 Main theoretical explanations on innovation funding Approach

Selection

ExplanationPOT Main Player Strategic Issues

Inducement PST

CST

AST

Entrepreneurs/Firms Investors

Entrepreneurs/Firms Investors

Ranking of bio-pharma venture owners’ funding preferencesa : i. VC & BA funding; ii. Public funding; iii. [IPOs]

Firm executives’ behaviours to shape their opportunities or investors’ inducements to form ties: i. casual dating ii. timing around proofpoints and scrutinising interest iii. crafting alternatives iv. investment tie formation

“Objective” selection criteria: i. Profitability ii. Size of final market iii. Quality of bioscience iv. Characteristics of the regulation v. Readiness of investee firms vi. Co-location vii. Intuition PLUS Project submission by entrepreneurs/firms Track record in spotting winners and generating rewards for limited partners

“Objective” selection criteria: i. Profitability ii. Size of final market iii. Quality of bioscience iv. Characteristics of the regulation v. Readiness of investee firms vi. Co-location vii. Intuition PLUS Active scouting of investment opportunities Track record in spotting winners and generating rewards for limited partners + evidence of coaching added value offered to venture owners

(continued)

12

INNOVATION FINANCING: A PROPOSAL …

319

Table 12.3 (continued) Approach

Selection

ExplanationPOT Rationale

Inducement PST

CST

AST

Entrepreneurs/Firms Entrepreneurs/Firms Entrepreneurs/Firms Funders choose their submit projects lacking direct ties actively search funders on the and funders to funders try to for ventures basis of their “cherry pick” the attract investors to fund and preferences, best according to through specific select the best including costs and “objective” strategic according to firm control screening criteria behaviours “objective” such as: screening profitability, criteria such market size, quality as: of bioscience, profitability, characteristics of market size, regulation, quality of readiness of bioscience, investee, intuition, characteristics co-location of regulation, readiness of investee, intuition, co-location

a Different from the standard POT ranking of preferences originally established by Myers and Majluf

(1984) Source Adapted from Sierra (2014)

diverse situations that arise in different contexts. This makes a strong case for a different approach, including a different look at it all (Tables 12.1 and 12.3), to start with. Moreover, a close look at the way the Colombian National System of Science, Technology and Innovation (NSSTI) is “designed” reveals that funders are not included in the list of nine types of players (i.e., research centres/institutes, centres for technological development, centres for innovation and productivity, firm RDI units, centres for science, highly innovative firms, technology-based firm incubators, technology transfer offices, science/technology/innovation parks) officially recognised as actors of the system (Colciencias, 2016; Minciencias website, 2020). Hence, we hereby advance an alternative explicative framework (Sierra, 2014, 2018, 2020) that offers some better understanding of the facts and reasons behind the phenomena thus placed under the spotlight.

320

J. H. SIERRA-GONZÁLEZ

12.2.1

A Feasible Explanation of the Colombian Case

Colombian innovative companies and potential investors are not well acquainted with the national/regional/sectoral STI system, and that includes its Institutionalised Financial System (IFS) (i.e., available established potential investors). This essentially means that companies do not know exactly how many and which feasible funding sources/mechanisms exist and investors do not know about innovative companies and their projects. This lack of knowledge makes interaction harder and funding relationship strategy building bumpier. This all creates gaps among project owners and external investors’ decision-making and action strategies, so innovation projects are fully impacted at the end of the day. In turn, this lack of knowledge—that reveals incompleteness of actors’ Knowledge Incorporation and Consolidation System (KICS, i.e., a network-based system that allows organisations to upgrade and increase their stock of knowledge relevant to carry out innovative projects)— is partially accounted for by context-specific problems and troublesome interaction mechanisms (e.g., inexistent or non-accessible information, lack of contact/interaction among actors, inadequate public policy, lack of negotiating experience). Furthermore, lacking or insufficient funding sources/mechanisms at national/regional/sectoral level (e.g., scarcity of venture capital interested in high-tech innovative projects in Colombia) and knowledge gaps (asymmetries) between project owners and potential investors (e.g., infrequent firm-funder contact) make this case even more difficult (Sierra, 2014). In this framework, the premises stated in Sierra (2014) and Sierra et al. (2021) are not currently fulfilled and this partially explains the problems described above. In the case of Colombia, very little, if anything, happens concerning this: i. project owners and potential funders hold a long-term, continuous interaction; ii. interactions are built around knowledge, characteristics of actors and contextual features; these can mutate over time and thus change interactions; iii. knowledge exchange and network-making are tied and play a key role in interactions; iv. funding decision-making processes and mutations need deep and complete understanding.

12

INNOVATION FINANCING: A PROPOSAL …

321

Hence, even if funding is available, innovation financing will not become more efficient in Colombia as long as individual actors do not know the other STI system players and their dynamics, there is not mechanisms to favour actors’ relations, actors lack experience and are unable to set up interaction facilitation mechanisms, KCS knowledge is not updated, funding demand and supply do not interact proactively, interactions miss key strategies on both sides, and dedicated financiers emerge in Colombia. Thus, the way out of the current situation (the Colombian paradox) means that we need to understand the problems stated better and to generate appropriate solution conditions.

12.3

Proposals to Improve the Colombian Innovation Financing Scenario

Despite the fact that innovation funding problems are usually approached from the traditional finance logics based on funding availability and costs (i.e., financial constraints phenomena), a more systemic approach is needed so that all ignored factors are incorporated into a more in-depth analysis as explained previously. What has been stated above demands a radically different approach. Especially, if it is accepted that normative views do not seem to work appropriately. Moreover, on the basis of the difficulties stated by firms in Table 12.2, some basic answers come straightforward to one’s mind in order to tackle such problems: the need for more accurate market studies, the need to enhance innovation protection mechanisms, the need for better information to mitigate uncertainty where and when possible, the need to hire experts in complex topics related to innovation, the need to boost a change of mindset in several players, the need to access better international services, and so on. Yet, according to the central elements of our proposal, some specific strategies suggested below may fit in more than one category or have potential impact in several dimensions. Four types of actions are required according to our premises: • Improving the matching environment – Innovation financing should be a key topic of STI governance at every level (national/regional/sectoral) beyond traditional

322

J. H. SIERRA-GONZÁLEZ

–

–

– –

“linear relationships” if a holistic approach/solution is to be implemented. A more detailed study of the reasons and processes behind companies and investors’ decision-making is needed. This includes a complementation of the EDIT (technological innovation) survey since the existing information data set is not sufficient to better understand innovation in Colombia. One way to improve such scenario is carrying out mixed, sectoral, 360-degree studies (involving all sorts of actors). Context-specific factors to facilitate interaction and trust building among actors of the STI (national/regional/sectoral) system should be fostered/constructed so that relationships are built more easily and frequently and innovation financing becomes easier. Information availability and transparency are key components of trust building. Sectoral and regional specificities, in particular, deserve closer attention. More effective systemic incentives (beyond subsidies or lowcost loans) and mechanisms to bring firms/universities/funders together are needed.

• Improving matching mechanisms – Context-specific mechanisms to facilitate interaction and trust building among actors of the STI system should be fostered/constructed so that relationships are built more easily and more frequently and innovation financing becomes easier. Such mechanisms should help reduce information asymmetry and favour rapid transit from cold contact to closer relations where necessary. – STI actors need to become aware of the need to build up and update their KICSs. At the same time, they need to determine their proactivity/reactivity concerning their funding/investment needs (e.g., project owners and investors), in particular according to their strategic framework and their projects. – Firm/sector networking initiatives around knowledge should be a key driver. These involve all types of actors and need to combine top-down and bottom-up approaches.

12

INNOVATION FINANCING: A PROPOSAL …

323

– Typical business conferences have a role to play, but they are not enough to facilitate innovation funding as needed in Colombia. Alternative mechanisms/structures to build interaction and trust among project owners and potential funders are necessary. – Collaborative project shaping formats should aim at including different types of funders where desirable. High-risk projects demand co-financing under well-defined rules at different levels. – Special characteristics crowdfunding has a role to play here. However, current legal requirements tend to hinder such a task. It is necessary to find out a way to open the door so useful crowdfunding modalities can support innovation. – Companies and investors’ KICSs need to be constantly adapted to sector/sub-sector characteristics. A detailed knowledge of the STI system and specific initiatives to bond actors are absolutely necessary. – How to leverage innovation funding through public capital markets? The Colombian market is extremely underdeveloped to be seriously considered as an exit mechanism and not even MILA (Latin American Integrated Market, an agreement among the stock markets of Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru started in 2009) is doing the work. An appropriate alternative needs to be found and implemented. • Creating/attracting Dedicated Investors (i.e., in short, investors that specialise and have deep, relevant financing experience in specific subsectors, particularly if these are cutting-edge knowledge-based) interested in key sectors/subsectors of the Colombian economy – All STI actors have a role to play in fostering the emergence (incorporation and transformation) of dedicated investors that complement the presence and activity of generalist (non/specialised) private and State funders. – Which existing investors bet on what (teams/science/product)? A characterisation is needed. More of each are needed as they may play complementary roles.

324

J. H. SIERRA-GONZÁLEZ

– There is the space and need for market-makers to arise in order to facilitate, guide, bring together and formalise ties among project owners and potential funders. – Colombian shareholders & entrepreneurs’ mindset needs to be changed! How to do it? An appropriate mid-to-long term cultural change approach should be discussed here. – Corporate VC should play a role… Why do Colombian established firms not actively invest in strategic projects in their sectors/projects of interest? – Innovation should be better protected (what mechanisms? in which context (country)?) to guarantee higher returns and attractiveness for funders. This does not imply that open innovation should be neglected. – More articulate information should be built up as to lessen uncertainty about project results and innovation demand so that attractiveness for funders (especially non-dedicated investors) is increased. – Public/private funding complementation (see signalling) is needed… This converges with a previous issue: How to favour the emergence and operation of dedicated funders in Colombia? • Educating innovation actors (e.g., firms, research centres) to appropriately interact in sectoral/regional STI systems – University research and technology transfer offices plus STIrelated centres (e.g., existing research/technology development centres and technology parks) have a key role to play in facilitating knowledge and interaction for innovation funding. – Further cooperation mechanisms aimed at collaborative innovation may help share risk and reduce resource commitment. – Individuals/teams of researchers (especially university-based researchers) need to be more proactive in this respect (e.g., why look at State agencies (Minciencias) as the only/main funder?) and Colombian (public and private) universities need to be more resourceful about it.

12

INNOVATION FINANCING: A PROPOSAL …

325

– In-house (firms, universities and research centres’) financial officials and innovation decision-makers need to converge strategically to counter short-termism, to facilitate learning at all levels (KICS), and to strengthen decision-making.

12.4

Closing Remarks

The Colombian situation makes an interesting case study concerning the financing of innovation. Innovative Colombian companies reveal an atypical pecking order ranking of preferences for the available funding sources and mechanisms (as usual in several sectors across the world), but such ranking unveils a paradoxical situation: the top preferred sources and mechanisms of financing (internal liquidity and commercial bank loans) are those that pose the most problems to the aforesaid companies. The features of such a scenario cannot be adequately explained in terms of the fundamentally cost-based logic of extant financial theories nor the scarce alternative explanations offered by slightly more “sociological” approaches. Thus, current theories seem insufficient to deal with the problem described for Colombia. Hence, a different line of attack has been proposed to understand what happens and to put forward some initiatives that might help solve some of the difficulties described altogether. On the basis of the explicative model advanced, we propose that, beyond funding costs and availability, innovation financing is codetermined by the recognition (acknowledgement of existence) and interaction—built around knowledge and the features of actors and the context– among players (particularly, existing investors and project owners in each specific setting) based on network-related knowledge exchanges so that relevant decision-making by the players engaged benefit from a deep understanding of “the game to be played”. This means that incumbent and, potentially, new system actors all have a role to play in order to improve the matching environment and mechanisms, to facilitate the emergence or to attract the presence of investors that complement their financial know-how with key high-tech sector/subsector expertise, and to coach system actors into high-level interactions that secure better understanding and greater financial participation in relevant projects.

326

J. H. SIERRA-GONZÁLEZ

This view implies also a different conception of the Colombian national STI system in which the centrality and leadership of the official hub (Minciencias ) and the follower role of all other actors has to be discussed and, eventually, complemented in a model where top-down and bottomup elements have their own relevance; where purely financial variables (e.g., funding costs) need to be complemented with non-financial variables (e.g., trust building) that co-determine strategic financing decisions by both project owners and potential funders of different kinds; where time mutations, exogenous factors and systemic contextual specificities (e.g., the lack of venture capital) need to be accounted for. To do so, we have proposed four lines of action (improving the existing matching environment and the mechanisms, creating or attracting dedicated investors, coaching actors to interact more appropriately) in which twenty-five initiatives are embedded (and probably many other may be devised) to boost the dynamics and the outcomes of a more systembased innovation funding approach in the Colombian national system. This proposal involves all actors and demands deeper or entirely new relationships and interactions that go beyond the typical roles displayed so far. Hence, the implications also run further and deeper than those of “bigger doses of the same old medicines” that are usually administered: different policy formulation/implementation/evaluation, stronger engagement and commitment of several actors, a more open combination of top-down/bottom-up initiative, diverse (even divergent) strategic sights and actions concerning the problematic situations faced by different sectors/sub-sectors and so on. Such a complex approach emerges from well-thought considerations about the current state of the world concerning the financing of innovation in different contexts (not only the traditional developed versus developing economies, but also internal regional and sectoral differences in each country) seen under the light of the latest theoretical reflections on the topic. Thus, it opens the way for further and deeper study about a largely overlooked area at the crossroads of several relevant fields (finance, innovation, strategy) related to international socio-economic development (e.g., STI policy design, implementation and assessment; STI governance studies; STI system compared studies).

12

INNOVATION FINANCING: A PROPOSAL …

327

Fig. 12.1 Innovation funding sources preferred by Colombian companies (Sierra [2020])

References ANIF-Centro de Estudios Económicos. (2018). La gran encuesta PyME – Lectura nacional. Asociación Nacional de Instituciones Financieras, Bogotá. Barona, B., Rivera, J. A., & Aguilera, C. (2015). Análisis de la relación de la innovación empresarial con la financiación en Colombia. Cuadernos de Administración, 28(50), 11–37. Barona, B., Rivera, J. A., Aguilera, C., & Garizado, P. (2015). Financiación de la innovación en Colombia. Entramado, 11(1), 80–93. Chaparro, F. (2019). Uno de los desafíos que se confrontan: ¿Cómo asegurar la financiación de la investigación, de la innovación y de programas de CT&I? Documento presentado en la Audiencia Pública sobre los avances en la creación del Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. Bogotá, Mimeo. Colciencias. (2016). Actores del Sistema Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación – Adoptada mediante Resolución No. 1473 de 2016 (Documento No. 1602). Bogotá. García, D., Barona, B., & Madrid, A. (2013). Financiación de la innovación en las Mipyme iberoamericanas. Estudios Gerenciales, 29(2013), 12–16. García, J., & Prado, N. (2019). Financiación pública de la innovación en Colombia: efectos y retos en la industria manufacturera (Masters’ thesis in Economics). Pontificia Universidad Javeriana (Col) Jiménez, L. F. (2008, Diciembre). Capital de riesgo e innovación en América Latina. Revista de la CEPAL, 96, 173–187.

328

J. H. SIERRA-GONZÁLEZ

Malaver, F., & Vargas, M. (2020). Bogotá-Región en el escenario OCDE. Prismas e indicadores de innovación. Cuadernos de Economía, 39(79), 103– 138. Myers, S. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1984). Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. Journal of Financial Economics, 13, 187–222. Otalora, D., Hurtado, R., & Quimbay, C. (2009). Interés de las empresas por la financiación de sus actividades de I+D+i: un análisis en el marco de las redes complejas para el sector manufacturero colombiano. In J. Robledo, F. Malaver, & M. Vargas (Eds.), Encuestas, datos y descubrimiento de conocimiento sobre la innovación en Colombia (pp. 211–213). Colciencias. Pardo, C. I., & Cotte, A. (Eds.). (2018). Science and Technology Indicators 2017 . Observatorio Colombiano de Ciencia y Tecnología, Bogotá. Sau, L. (2007). New pecking order financing for innovative firms: an overview (Working Paper No. 02). Department of Economics, University of Turin (Ita). Sierra, J. (2014). Financing innovation in bio-pharma: a sectoral systems approach (PhD Thesis). Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester (UK). Sierra, J. (2018). La cuarta hélice y la financiación de la innovación. Journal of Economics , Finance and Administrative Science, 23(45), 128–137. Sierra, J. (2020). How financial systems and firm strategy impact the choice of innovation funding. European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(2), 251–272. Sierra, J., Londoño, D. and García, J. (2021) Innovation financing in Colombia: An explicative proposal. Cuadernos de Administración - Universidad Javeriana, 34. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.cao34.ifce. Sierra, J., Malaver, F., & Vargas, M. (2009). La financiación de la innovación: un análisis a partir de la encuesta de innovación de Bogotá y Cundinamarca. In J. Robledo, F. Malaver, & M. Vargas (Eds.), Encuestas, datos y descubrimiento de conocimiento sobre la innovación en Colombia (175–210). Colciencias. https://minciencias.gov.co/reconocimiento_de_actores/actores_reconocidos.

Index

A absorptive capacity, 249 adoption, 19, 21–30 ADS-B, 241 aerospace, 236, 237 agricultural agriculture, 65 AIS, 240 Alarcón, Ó., 160 allies finding. See allies Altenburg, T., 181 Arnold, E., 119 Arocena, R., 61, 148, 289, 291 Arond, E., 3 ARSAT, 244

B Bariloche, 233, 245, 246, 248 Bariloche Model, 89 Barona, 312, 313 barriers, 17, 20 barriers to entry, 251

Battilana, J., 120, 121, 132, 151 Bekkers, V., 21, 24 Benavente, J.M., 63, 266, 291 Berkhout, F., 133, 148, 151, 153 Bland, T., 29 Boni, S., 118 Bortagaray, I., 108 bottom-up, 107, 115, 116, 118, 125, 130, 239 Bovaird, T., 153 Boxenbaum, E., 121, 132, 151 Brouwer, S., 121 Brown, T., 20–22

C CAB, 246 CACT, 267 CACTI, 261, 267, 268, 270, 272, 278 capabilities, 110, 113–115, 117, 126, 131, 233, 235–238, 243, 245–248, 252

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Ordónez-Matamoros et al. (eds.), Policy and Governance of Science, Technology, and Innovation, Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80832-7

329

330

INDEX

capacity, 264, 268, 270, 271, 273–275, 277 capacities, 265, 267, 271, 277 capacity building, 94 Carrillo Flórez, F., 159 case study, 233, 234 CEATSA, 245 Central America, 57 Central American countries, 56 Central America, 55 Central American region Central America, 56 central contradiction, 298 centralised coordination, 93 central problem, 287 challenge, 37, 46 change, 287, 288, 290, 305 Chataway, J., 116, 149 Chile, 17, 56 Christensen, C., 22 citizens, 16–18, 20, 21, 26, 27 clientelism, 295, 296, 298, 301, 304 climate change, 3 clusters, 235–237, 242, 246, 253 CNEA, 245, 247, 251 CNIC, 261, 266, 268, 272, 273, 275, 276, 278 CNID, 266, 270, 273 co-creation, 17, 20, 25 Codecti, 83 Colciencias, 82, 93–95, 168, 171, 286, 293, 295–297 Colombia, 3–7, 15–17, 21, 28, 86, 91, 93, 97, 311–314, 320–325, 327 Colombia’s National System of Innovation, 93 common pools of evaluators, 64 competitiveness, 60, 148, 155, 158, 160, 162, 164–167, 169, 172, 173, 175

complex, 233, 235, 236, 243–248, 252 composition, 265, 270, 273, 276, 277 CONAE, 234, 244, 245, 247, 249–252 conceptual framework, 291, 292 conceptual innovations, 24 conditions for innovation, 29 consumption, 62 Cooke, P., 156 coordination, 260, 263–265, 276, 277 coordinative, 264, 268, 270, 274, 277 COPAT, 246 coproduction, 20 Correa Henao, M., 160 corruption, 55 Costa Rica, 57 Costa Rican Coffee Institute, 65 COTS, 243, 250, 251 councillors, 261, 262, 267, 268, 270–276, 278, 279 councils, 260–265, 268, 270–277 COVID-19, 25–27, 56 COVID-19 pandemic, 1, 4 Cozzens, Susan, 2, 3, 61, 71, 90, 108, 110, 136 credits, 313 crisis, 287 critical juncture, 288 cultural change, 301, 303 cultural context, 287 cultural dynamics, 62 Cumbers, A., 155 Cuscatlan, 59

D Daglio, M., 19 Damanpour, F., 22–24 David, P., 150 Dawley, S., 156

INDEX

decentralisation, 93, 306 demand knowledge, 90 democratisation, 93 democratization of knowledge, 291, 306 Deng Xiaoping, 297 development, 147–150, 153, 155, 158, 160, 162, 165, 166, 168–172, 174, 175, 180, 181 direct approach, 148, 158, 170, 180 indirect approach, 148, 155, 158, 170–172, 174, 175 development challenges, 56 De Vries, H., 21, 24, 28, 29 Diercks, G., 112 diffusion, 235, 237–239, 242, 250 diffusion-oriented, 237–239, 250 digital agendas, 63 DiMaggio, P., 120, 121, 151 directionality, 116, 129 discourses development discourses, 107 discrete innovation, 27 disruption, 22 disruptive innovation, 21, 23 diversification, 234, 235, 240, 248, 253 productive diversification, 235 regional diversification, 235 Dominican Republic, 57 downstream applications, 240, 241, 249, 251, 252 DSS, 242, 249, 250 Durán-Sánchez, M.F., 161 Dutrénit, G., 3, 35, 108

E earth observation, 240, 244, 245, 247, 251, 252 eccentric innovation, 26

331

economic growth, 109, 110, 115, 133, 136, 137, 148, 160, 165, 172 economic liberalisation, 159, 160, 162, 169, 170, 175 ECSS, 251 Edquist, C., 115, 159, 259, 262, 265, 276 El Salvador, 57 Embeddedness, 85, 89 emerging economy (or economies), 5, 6, 8, 106–108, 114, 117, 119, 120, 134, 135, 137, 147, 149, 157, 158, 177, 178 employment, 67 enabling technologies, 240, 250 environmental environment, 65 equity, 313, 315 ESA, 242 Estonia, 18, 21, 26 ethics, 304 Europe, 67 evaluation, 118, 129 evolutionary theory, 235, 237 executive, 264, 271, 272, 274, 275, 277, 279 experimentation, 113, 114, 116, 117, 124, 133 external funding, 312 externalities, 86

F Fagerberg, J., 22, 29 failures of the State, 291 Fals Borda, 3 female women, 57 finance capital, 241 financial system, 312 Fischer, F., 130

332

INDEX

flat innovation, 27, 29 Foray, D., 16 foresight, 286, 303 formation phase, 121, 161, 172, 175 formation phases. See formation phase Foster, C., 148 frugal innovation, 2 funders, 313, 314, 316, 317, 319, 320, 322–324, 326 Funding demand and supply, 321 funding preference, 312 funding sources, 313, 314, 316, 320, 325, 327 G Gaglio, G., 105, 114, 136 García, R., 85 Garud, R., 151, 177 Gatchair, S., 110 Geels, F.W., 112, 113, 118, 123 gender, 57 gender equity, 3 GINI coefficients, 56 GINI indices GINI coefficient, 56 Global South, 2 Glor, E.D., 29 Godin, B., 105, 109, 114 governance, 60, 83, 85, 92, 95, 96, 108, 119, 127, 131–135, 149, 151–154, 157, 161, 164–167, 169, 170, 172, 173, 175, 177–179, 235, 240, 244, 252, 260, 262, 263 dance metaphor, 154 first-order learning, 154, 165, 166, 172, 175 governance of competitiveness, 166–170, 172, 173 governance of innovation, 150, 151, 153–155, 159, 166–173, 177–180

governance studies, 158 Innovation Policy Dance, 154 negative coordination, 154 noise reduction, 154 positive coordination, 154 second-order, 154, 180 governance structure, 298 government policies, 298 government subsidies, 313 Grand Challenges, 2, 5, 106 grand challenges, 197, 200, 226, 238, 239 grassroots innovation, 2, 3 Green Book 2030, 82, 94, 95 Grin, J., 106, 108, 113, 118 Guatemala, 57 Gudynas, E., 137 Gupta, J., 30

H Hanlin, R., 149 Harsh, M., 180 Hartley, J., 21, 22, 24, 28–30 health, 65 Heeks, R., 148 Heiskanen, E., 181 Henning, M., 150 herd immunity, 26 heuristic, 149, 153, 156, 158 hierarchisation, 91, 96 high-income level countries high income country, 56 Holtmann, P., 157, 158 Honduran Institute of Science, Technology and Innovation, 60 Honduras, 57 horizontal mechanisms, 58 Howaldt, J., 180 Howlett, M., 20, 106 Hyysalo, S., 181

INDEX

I ICT, 44, 234, 235, 240, 241, 245, 246, 249, 251 Information and Communication Technologies, 63 IE. See Institutional Entreprenuers (IEs) Incentives, 317, 322 inclusion, 58 inclusive approach, 91, 94, 95, 97 inclusive development, 30, 197, 225, 227 inclusive innovation, 2, 71 inclusive institutionality, 286 inclusiveness, 239 inclusive political institutions, 288 income, 56 income inequality, 56 incremental innovation, 22, 27 indicators, 36, 43, 47, 50 indigenous communities, 56 Indonesia, 15, 17, 18, 21 industrial industry, 65 industrialized economies, 36 Industry 4.0, 240 Infoplazas, 63 Information and Communications Technologies. See ICT innovation, 36 innovation-based solutions, 71 innovation ecosystem, 253 Innovation financing, 7 innovation funding/financing, 311, 316, 318, 321, 323, 324, 326 innovation governance, 197, 200, 222, 224, 226 innovation in products or services, 24 innovation policy, 38, 39 innovation policy studies, 108, 111 innovations in governance, 24 innovation’s public procurement, 69

333

innovation system, 113, 133, 194, 196, 198, 199, 201, 203, 225, 238, 239, 249, 252. See also National Innovation Systems innovative companies, 312–314, 316, 317, 320 innovative firms, 312, 313, 316, 319 institutional arrangement, 58 institutional dimensión, 288 Institutional Entrepreneurs, 120, 122 Institutional Entrepreneurship, 176 divergent change (or changes), 151, 161 Institutional Entrepreneurs (or IEs), 151, 156, 157, 159–161, 172, 175 vision of change, 160 institutional environment, 62 institutional settings, 238 institutions, 196, 198, 199, 201, 210, 226 interactive model, 84 intermediation, 117, 118, 125 Internal funding, 312, 313, 317 Internet of Things (IoT), 240 INVAP, 233, 234, 244, 246–248, 251 investors, 313, 317–320, 322–326 J Jarvis, O., 157 Jessop, B., 153, 154 Johns, C.M., 29 joint venture, 251 junctural situation. See critical juncture juncture phenomenon. See critical juncture K Kaletka, C., 180 Kanger, L., 113, 114, 133 Kaplinsky, R., 3, 148

334

INDEX

Karnøe, P., 151, 177 Karnani, A., 180 Kattel, R., 305 Kemp, R., 111, 115 Kenya, 18 Kern, F., 106, 117, 132, 134 Kivimaa, P., 117, 118 Klijn, E.-H., 200 knowledge, 37 knowledge-based externalities, 249 knowledge demand, 65 knowledge democratization, 290 knowledge-diffusion activities, 235 knowledge generation, 50 knowledge-intensive firms, 233, 249 knowledge production and use, 84 Koch, J., 149, 151, 156, 176 Koppenjan, J., 200 Kotro, T., 181 Kuhlmann, S., 106, 114, 117, 120, 132, 133, 153, 154, 200, 263, 276 Kuhn, T.S., 150 Kulhman, S., 289 Kumaraswamy, A., 151, 177

L labor market, 57 Laranja, M., 153 Latin America, 56, 109, 137, 148, 234, 236, 239, 243, 245 Latin American, 286, 290, 293, 298 Latin American perspective, 90–92 Latin American region, 2, 3 Latin America, 56 learning, 62 learning by doing, 248 learning opportunities, 240 Leca, B., 151 Lemola, T., 153, 178 Levi, M., 176

liberalization process, 55 Lindblom, C.E., 155, 166, 172, 175, 176 linear innovation, 84 local level, 86, 91, 92, 97 lock-in, 236, 247 Lozano-Borda, M., 90, 94 Lucio-Arias, D., 122, 161, 171

M Mackinnon, D., 155 Markard, J., 113, 133 market failures, 290, 300, 304 markets, 62 Marrakech Task Force on Sustainable Public Procurement, 70 Martinez Navarro, F., 28 Martin, R., 150, 156 Matallana, S., 157, 174 matching environment and mechanisms, 313, 325 Mazzucato, M., 16, 109, 112, 288 Meadowcroft, J., 133 Medellin The Most Educated, 39, 45, 47 Melo Velásco, J., 170 men, 57 metaphor of the dancers, 290 Methodological Framework, 39 MICITT, 68 micro-enterprises, 67 migration, 57 military-industrial complexes, 241 Ministry, 286, 287, 295–302, 304–306 Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology, 59, 60 Ministry of Innovation and Modernization of the State, 59 Ministry of Science and Technology, 59

INDEX

Ministry of STI, 300, 302 (Mis)alignment, 93, 94 mission, 237–239, 245, 248–252 Mission of Wise Men, 94 mission-oriented, 109, 112, 237–239, 245, 248, 250 Mission-Oriented Innovation Policies, 38, 39, 51. See also MOIP mission-oriented policy, 4, 65 mission-oriented research, 290, 291 missions, 37–40, 48–51 MLP, 113, 132, 290 modularization, 249–251 MOIP, 38, 40 Molas-Gallart, J., 118 Moore, M., 20, 24, 28, 29 MOP, 43, 46, 47 MTME, 39, 40, 46, 49 MTME Mission, 46 MTME Program, 45, 47, 49 multi-level perspective, 86. See also MLP multi-purpose technologies, 235, 250

N Naccache, P., 154 NASA, 234, 247 National Academy of Sciences, 60 National Administrative System of Competitiveness and Innovation (NASCI). See National Innovation Systems National Banana Corporation CORBANA, 65 National Council, 286, 294, 298, 305 National Council of Science and Technology, 59 national development, 37 national development plans, 57 National Innovation Systems, 148, 259, 260, 262, 263, 266

335

National Optical Fiber Plan, 39, 42 National Research Council, 59 National Secretariat of Science, Technology and Innovation, 60 National System of Competitiveness, Science, Technology and Innovation (NSCSTI). See National Innovation Systems National System of Science and Technology (NSST). See National Innovation Systems National System of Science Technology and Innovation (NSSTI). See National Innovation Systems natural disasters, 56 network, 85, 242, 244, 246, 248 networking, 121, 122, 322 New Space, 241, 245, 250 Nicaragua, 57 niches, 87, 92, 113, 116, 118, 123, 125, 133 NOFP, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46 non-state actors, 30 novelty, 18, 21–30 nuclear, 234, 245–247, 250 O OCAD, 93 OECD, 15–23, 26, 28, 260, 263–266, 268, 286, 292–294 Ongkittikul, S., 29 open government, 17, 18 open science, 303 operational policy network, 195, 197, 201, 203, 205, 208–213, 209, 213, 215, 220, 222–225 Ordóñez-Matamoros, G., 107, 114, 120, 122, 130, 155 organisation, 260, 265, 266, 273 Orozco, L.A., 195, 203, 208, 223, 224 Oslo Manual, 19, 22

336

INDEX

Owen, R., 148, 261 P PAED, 93 Palmberg, C., 153, 178 Panama, 56, 57 Pansera, M., 148 Papaioannou, T., 180 participation, 18, 21, 116, 121, 123, 124 path dependence, 6, 85, 87, 88, 150, 151, 156–159, 176, 234, 236 critical juncture (or junctures), 150, 151, 157, 159, 161 formation phase, 157, 159, 161, 172, 175 increasing returns. See Selfreinforcing mechanism (or mechanisms) locked-in, 148, 149, 172 lock-in, 149–151, 157, 159, 172, 174–177 path-creation, 177 path-dependence process, 149, 156, 159, 172, 175 pre-formation phase, 149, 156, 159, 175, 176 theory, 149, 150 Paunov, C., 2 per capita income, 56 Pierson, P., 121, 122, 127, 149, 151, 153, 176 Pike, A., 156 PITBA, 247 policy (or policies), 62, 148, 149, 155, 158, 161–163, 172, 180, 260, 262–264, 267, 268, 271–278 competitiveness policy (or policies), 161 development policy. See development diffusion-oriented policies, 237, 239

horizontal policies, 237, 250 industrial policies, 237 innovation policy (or policies), 148–152, 154, 155, 157–159, 161–163, 165, 170, 172, 177, 178, 180, 181, 236, 239, 249–252 mission-oriented policies, 237, 239, 248, 252 new generation, 157, 177, 180, 181 policy cycle, 118 policy design, 116, 118, 125, 129 policy evaluation, 118, 125, 127 policy frame. See policy framework policy goals, 114, 115, 129–131 policy implementation, 118, 125 policy instruments, 108, 117, 118, 120, 127, 131, 132, 135 policy mix. See policy mixes policy paradigms, 136 policy process, 130, 133 policy studies, 130, 131, 151 policy tools, 163, 164, 170 regional policies, 236 STI policies, 148, 149 technological policies, 237, 238 transformative policies, 180 transversal policies, 162 vertical policies, 250 policy design, 224, 225 policy domain, 194, 199, 202 policy framework, 3, 111 policy goals, 200, 205, 224 policy implementation, 194, 196, 201, 226 policy instruments, 57, 196, 197, 199, 201, 204, 222, 225–227 policy learning, 58 policy makers, 197, 223, 225 policy mixes, 117, 132, 134 policy networks, 194–197, 199, 200, 222, 223, 225, 226

INDEX

politics, 63, 108, 122, 127, 130–133, 135 population, 56 poverty, 55, 56 power, 88, 92 practice field, 195, 198, 201, 215, 223 practice work, 195, 198, 201, 215, 220, 223 Prieto, G.C., 170 prime contractor, 234, 247, 251 process innovations, 24 production practices, 62 productive development, 3 productive transformation, 67 productivity, 148, 157, 162, 165, 166, 170–175 project owners, 313, 320, 322–326 proximity, 248, 253 public funding, 312, 313, 317 public goods, 237 public innovation, 4, 15–26, 28–30 public procurement, 69 public procurement for innovation, 69 public value, 19–21 Q qualitative analyses, 41 qualitative research, 83 R R&D, 62 R&D systems, 64 radical innovation, 22, 26 Raven, R., 113 Rawls, J., 110 RDIA, 250 reflexivity, 114, 116, 133 regional, 195, 196, 203, 213, 226 regional collaborative strategy regional collaboration, 64

337

regional development, 36 regional diversification, 89 Rennkamp, B., 148 Repo, P., 181 researchers, 324 research mobility, 63 resources, 264, 265, 268, 270, 273, 274, 276, 277, 279 Responsible Research and Innovation, 2, 5 Rhodes, R., 201 RICYT, 56 Rip, A., 106, 111, 114, 117 Robinson, D.K., 37 Rogers-Dillon, R.H., 29 Rogers, E.M., 21, 23 Rohracher, H., 106, 112–116 role, 260, 263–265, 272–275 Rossiter, W., 159 Roth, A.-N., 20 Roth Deubel, A.-N., 155 routines, 235, 236 rural areas, 56

S Sábato, J.A., 3 Salazar, M., 158 Salazar Vargas, C., 155 Salerno, F.M., 151, 158 SAOCOM, 251 SAR, 251 SARE, 249 SARS, 27 SASTI, 119–123, 125–129 satellite imagery, 241, 243, 245, 249, 251, 252 satellite industry, 241, 245, 249 Satellogic, 245, 252 scholarships, 63 Schot, J., 106, 109, 111, 113–118, 123, 131, 133

338

INDEX

Schreyögg, G., 149, 151, 156–158, 176 Schröder, A., 180 Schumpeter, J.A., 22 Science/technology/innovation (STI) system, 312 Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland (STPC), 266 Science, Technology and Innovation, 5, 8, 35, 147–150, 158, 161, 163–165, 169, 171, 259–268, 271, 273, 274, 276, 278 actors, 161, 168 catch-up, 148 innovation, 148, 150, 151, 153, 154, 156–159, 161–167, 169–177, 180 innovation for economic productivity, 170, 171, 174 mainstream, 148 resources, 163 social innovation, 170 system, 157 scientific productivity, 57 scientific-technological development, 37 scientific-technological knowledge, 36 Secretariat, 274 selection mechanisms, 238 selectivity, 237 Self-reinforcing mechanism (or mechanisms), 121, 125, 149–153, 155, 157, 159, 161, 167, 172, 173, 175–177 collective nature of politics, 152, 155, 162, 173 complexity and opacity of politics, 153–155, 170, 174 institutional density of politics, 152, 153, 164, 173

political authority and power asymmetries, 152, 154, 167, 173 Sen, A., 110, 111 senior academicians, 57 Shapira, Philip, 69, 154 Sierra, 311–313, 315–317, 319, 320, 327 SME, 247, 249, 250 Smith, A., 106, 108, 133 Smith, D.J., 159 Smits, R., 117, 154 SMME small, micro and medium-size enterprises, 66 Social Appropriation. See SASTI Social Appropriation of knowledge, 305 social challenges, 39 Social demands, 90 social exclusion, 55 social inclusion, 108, 114, 115, 127, 133, 134, 136, 197, 227 social network analysis, 195, 197, 207, 208, 219 social networks, 88 social programs, 55 social technology, 90 sociotechnical change, 196, 200 sociotechnical system, 113 sociotechnical systems changes, 82, 93 Soete, L., 84, 86, 178 South Korea, 15, 17, 26 space agencies, 241, 242, 250, 251 space sector, 234–237, 243, 245, 247, 248, 252 spillovers, 238, 248 spin-offs, 237, 238, 244 SPRU, 82 stagnation, 286, 287, 289 stakeholders, 260, 264, 270 Stam, E., 150

INDEX

standards, 250, 251 start-ups, 245 State failures, 291, 294 state-owned enterprise. See state-owned firm state-owned firm, 244 State policy, 65, 289, 295, 297–299, 302, 305, 306 Steinmueller, Edward, 3 Steinmueller, W.E., 106, 109, 113–117, 134 Steward, F., 106, 112–114, 117 STI., 57. See also Science, Technology and Innovation STI actors, 315, 322, 323 STI Council, 287, 298 STI governance, 293, 321, 326 STI Management, 289 STI National Council, 297, 301, 302 STI organizations, 58 STI policies for inclusive development, 70 STI policy, 36, 37, 195, 196, 202, 204, 223, 226 STI policy and governance, 1, 9 STI policy development efforts, 55 STI policy frameworks transfer, 85, 90, 94, 95 STI regional funds, 83, 93 STI regional policy, 82, 93, 95, 97 Stirling, A., 133 STI system, 313, 316, 320–324, 326 strategic coordination, 289, 306 strategic decision-making, 37 strategic foresight, 285, 305 strategic governance, 290, 292, 299, 301, 302 strategic missions, 36 strategic niche management, 113, 117, 125 STS thinking, 112, 135

339

subnational governments, 195, 202–205, 207, 209, 218, 222, 224 SULLIVAN, H., 22 Sunley, P., 150, 156 supply instruments, 69 sustainability, 58 sustainability transitions, 113 sustainable and inclusive development, 2–4, 60 sustainable development, 2, 5, 59 Sustainable Development Agenda, 61 Sustainable Development Goals, 82, 95, 106, 111, 131 sustainable public procurement, 70 Sutz, J., 108, 117, 148 Sydow, J., 149–151, 156–159, 176 syncretism, 287 system, 261, 263, 264, 267 system failures, 291, 294 systemic changes, 61 systemic coordination, 249 systemic failures, 199, 200 systemic functions, 198, 225 systemic intermediaries, 195, 209, 213–215, 222, 224, 226 system innovation, 134 system innovations. See system innovation system of innovation approach, 238

T TAI, 251 Techno-Economic Paradigm, 111, 240 technological extensionism, 68 technological paradigms, 234, 236, 237, 252 technological policies, 234, 235, 248 technological trajectories, 235–238, 240, 242, 249, 252, 253

340

INDEX

technologies, 37 technology transfer, 37 telecommunication, 240, 244, 247, 251 telephone booths, 26 territorial heterogeneity, 55 Territorial System of Innovation, 91, 97 territory, 91, 97, 297, 306 The Commission for the Development of Science and Technology for Central America and Panama CTCAP, 64 thematic analysis, 41 Thomas, H., 148, 245 TIP discourses, 107, 112, 120 Tomaney, J., 156 Torfing, J., 20, 22, 23, 28 Tracey, P., 157 training, 63 transformational failures, 115 transformations, 62 transformative innovation, 5, 87, 91, 97, 117 transformative innovation policy, 3, 5, 289, 290, 306. See also TIP Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium, 82 transition, 61 transition arenas, 117, 118 Truffer, B., 113 U Una niña, un niño, una computadora, 63 UNCTAD, 260, 275, 283 unemployment, 57 United Kingdom, 26

United Nations Environment Program, 69 United States, 27, 29 universities, 195, 198, 203, 207, 211, 213, 215, 222 upstream, 241, 249, 252 Uruguay, 56

V value chains, 239, 240 van Lente, H., 118 venture capital, 251 venture capitalists, 317 vertical instruments, 63 vertical mission-oriented mission-oriented, 64 Vice Ministry of Science and Technology, 60 vicious circle, 287, 289, 298, 305 Villa López, L., 170 Vinck, D., 105, 118 Voß, J.-P., 118, 124

W Wasserman, M., 208 Weber, M., 106, 112–116 Wenting, R., 150 women, 57 World Bank, 19, 23, 260

X X-innovation, 135

Z Zirngiebl, M., 180 Zurbriggen, C., 20