Philippe Larédo-La empresa y las políticas de innovación transformadoras

Philippe Larédo-La empresa y las políticas de innovación transformadoras

• 1.
  Innovation policy atstake: “the emperor is naked” Philippe Larédo Scientific workshop on transforming innovation policy Madrid, 25 April 2017 MIoIR
• 2.
  A two steppresentation • The central question: - we have 50 years of accumulated strata of R&D and innovation policies - most evaluations have shown that they are performative even if there are numerous ‘internal’ questions raised • But are we sure they are still relevant, that they do not ‘miss the boat’? • My argument: - they apply mostly on ‘manufacturing’ industries and ‘technology led’ innovations - but the situation differs widely from these 2 combined dimensions - and leaves the ‘field of public intervention’ fully open…
• 3.
  Accumulated knowledge oninnovation policies: a simplified review • An old but quite useful ‘characterisation’ framework proposed by OECD combining: • Chabbal 3 circles describing types of RDI activities (research, applied research, development) • Piganiol 3 policy macro objectives: supporting science (as a public good), R&I for Government missions, shaping the firm innovation space • Drives to recognise 3 major periods, each with preferred problems & policy instruments, with a cumulative effect (very few tools from the previous period disappear)
• 4.
  Fundamental research Applied Research Development The OECDmodel (Chabbal 1970s) 3 Types of R&D activities & 3 types of situations ESTABLISHED INDUSTRIES & FIRMS PUBLIC MISSIONS /GOODSNEW S&T BASED INDUSTRIES Two models (alternative or complementary): - universities & research councils - Fundamental research PROs
• 5.
  PUBLIC MISSIONS /GOODS FIRMS NEW S&TBASED INDUSTRIES Technical centres (per industry) Innovation grants & loans FIRST GENERATION POLICIES Mission oriented PROS Public Procurement Large programmes State or agency led With strong PRO Key role of National/ European champions
• 6.
  PUBLIC MISSIONS /GOODS FIRMS NEW TECHNOLOGIES Intermediary structures: Technologyresource centre (mostly per region) SECOND GENERATION POLICIES & NATIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS Problem- solving Agencies (e.g. AIDS) Collaborative programmes Role of large firms Collaborative ‘characterisation’ Programmes e.g. environment Renewed interest in IPR
• 7.
  GRAND CHALLENGES FIRMS START-UP ECOLOGY Growing role ofpublic Development banks Tax credits THIRD GENERATION POLICIES Will for embracing Programmes – Still mostly use of Previous solutions Demand based policies Multiplication of instruments Covering the 3 layers (incubators, science parks, seed capital, support to venture capital….) Capability building Higher education and research: Central role of universities
• 8.
  A progressive multi-levelassemblage • APART from collective goods (see other presentations) • A de facto specialisation between regions, states & the EU - A European framing of a friendly environment (IPR, standards, frames for demand-based policies..) - EC critical role for frontier S&T - National Support to individual firms (tax credits & development banks) & for science policy at large (as ‘capability building’) - Regions for existing industries: EC ‘smart specialisation’
• 9.
  Positive evaluations evenwith multiple ‘internal’ debates • Even if ‘internal’ debates multiply - on the overall effectiveness of ‘policy mixes’ - on the balance between direct vs indirect supports (and about the potential loose-loose situation of tax credits) - on the balance between supply vs demand oriented tools • Overall positive evaluations about the impacts of individual instruments (see MIOIR compendium)
• 10.
  So what isthe issue? Does this accumulated knowledge apply to the 3 core transformations the economy is going through? T1- what about the service economy T2- What about globalisation T3- How to consider the shifting role of users
• 11.
  How to copewith the over- dominating service economy? • Are the two ways we categorise innovation in services enough? - firms that operate in a manufacturing mode (transport, banks, construction) - Knowledge intensive business services (KIBS) • How to consider ‘services to individuals’ (health, tourism, leisure & culture…) - should we restrict to their ‘manufacturing like’ bits (e.g. videogames, new drugs) - what about ‘hidden innovation’ in hospitals (SPRU) - what about hotel chains & their analytics? - what about the role of cultural investments (museums, events) in tourism? - etc.
• 12.
  New issues raisedby globalisation • Growing concentration: few firms in most markets, present everywhere  our competition paradigm cannot cope with this • Absolute & no longer comparative advantages  powerful shifts in manufacturing landscapes (e.g. evolving French structure or US ‘reindustrialisation discourse) • Wide transformation of relations between producing firms & consumers - the critical importance of brands - the internet revolution & investments on ‘circulation processes (away from production) - new software firms dealing with producer-user interfaces (big data & personalisation…)
• 13.
  Shifting role ofusers in driving innovation • 5 keywords to capture the potentially massive transformation underway: - crowd sourcing - political consumption / responsible innovation - social innovation & new forms of local collective development - DIY (fablab, 3D printing…) - Sharing economy (cars, tools, houses...) questioning the articulation between consumption & ownership • Do these movements remain marginal, or do they, together, drive to a deep reconsideration of innovation dynamics - not only in the ways innovation take place - but even more on innovation as a permanent source for renewed and enlarged comsumption/markets
• 14.
  To conclude • Wehave a well elaborated and cumulative policy frame for supporting innovation - even if we question it: balance between direct & indirect supports, between supply & demand tools, building of policy mixes • But is it able to anticipate /cope with on-going transformative changes observed? - How can it consider new developments in the economy (services, distribution infrastructures, new user practices)? - are the different streams of instruments (indirect support to firms, investment in individual firms, collective orchestration/ accompanying) adapted and with what type of balance?
• 15.
  And a finalplea • One striking phenomenon (when analysing recent reports): researchers in advisory positions keep focusing on ‘manufacturing’ models • This my plea - at the individual level: spend more time in ‘characterising’ situations before advising (and in particular better identify local on-going transformative processes) - at the collective level, an urgent need to redefine the research agenda on firm-based innovation activities