Download PDF | Downoads: 83
Abstract:As innovation becomes the main imperative of macroeconomic policy throughout the modern world, there is a growing tendency to isolate policies related to innovation issues. This logic suggests that modern socio-economic systems have become unable to meet ambitious social challenges and ensure economic competitiveness, because our societies, institutions, scientific activities or individual predispositions, according to some researchers, are not sufficiently focused on innovation. In this study, we analyze this so-called “innovation deficit” model, in which the lack of innovation is usually referred to as the main obstacle to social progress.
Drawing parallels in the study with the concept of the deficit of social understanding of science, widely known in the world scientific community under the term “public understanding of science” (PUS), we will develop a theoretical framework that reflects the dynamics and regulatory aspects of the formation of the deficit. In doing so, we will highlight five main aspects: problem diagnosis, remedies, the role of expertise, implied social rules, and the measurement of success. We will apply this theoretical framework to three empirical case studies of recent innovation strategies: Luxembourg, Singapore and Denmark. We emphasize that attention to this deficit, which structures innovation, is important because it is an essential part of the mechanism by which innovation transforms societies in the twenty-first century: not only through new technological opportunities or economic growth, but also through the formation of public discourse, the narrowing of public policy options, and the legitimization of major institutional interventions. The implied Pro-innovation preference, as a rule, marginalizing other justifications, values and social functions, which are clearly not prone to innovation. The experience of history “deficit of public understanding of science“ shows that without purposeful efforts to transform innovation policy into a more democratic, inclusive and clearly state political field, the current logic of deficit and its technocratic implication are fraught with serious social and economic shocks.
Keywords:diagnosis of the current lack of innovation, innovation imperative, innovation policy, model of "deficit of innovation"
JEL-Classification: O31, O32, O33
References (transliterated):Aghion P., Howitt P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction Econometrica. (2). 323–351.
Collins H.M., Evans R. (2007). Rethinking Expertise
EC, 2016. Why Do We Need an Innovation Union?European Commission. Retrieved 2 November 2016, , from http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm? pg=why
Etzkowitz H. (2008). The Triple Helix: Industry, University, and Government in Innovation
Fairclough N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language
Fischer F., Forester J. (1993). The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning
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
Jasanoff S. (1994). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers
Jasanoff S. (2005). Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States
Jasanoff S. (2005). Why compare? Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States
Kuhlmann S., Rip A. The Challenge of Addressing Grand ChallengesEc.europa.eu. Retrieved 4 October 2018, , from https://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/ pdf/expert-groups/The_challenge_of_addressing_Grand_Challenges.pdf
Lee H.L. Prime Minister of Singapore on SUTD. Prime Minister’s Office Transcript of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s Speech at the SUTD East Coast Campus Opening on May 8, 2015Pmo.gov.sg. Retrieved 4 October 2018, , from https://www.pmo.gov.sg/newsroom/ transcript-prime-minister-lee-hsien-loong-speech-sutd-east-coast-campus-opening-8-may
Luxembourg for Business, 2015Your Prime Business Location. Retrieved from https://www. tradeandinvest.lu/invest-in-luxembourg
Matrizaev B.D. (2018). Makrostrategii innovatsionnogo razvitiya i globalnyy ekonomicheskiy rost: Makroekonomicheskiy analiz, trendy, prognozy [The macro strategy of innovative development and global economic growth: Macroeconomic analysis, trends, forecasts] (in Russian).
Matrizaev B.D. (2018). Globalnoe innovatsionnoe liderstvo: makrokontury i modelirovanie ego kontseptualnoy osnovy [Global innovation leadership: microcentury and modeling of its conceptual foundations]. Munitsipalnaya akademiya. (1). 85-91. (in Russian).
Morozov E. (2013). To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism
Norn M.T., Jensen B.L., Laursen U. From Research to Invoice: What Can We Learn from 10 Years’ Attempt to Commercialize Research?DEA, Copenhagen, 2013. Retrieved 1 May 2018, , from https://dea.nu/sites/dea.nu/files/Web_Fra%20forskning0til%20faktura%202_0.pdf
Pollit C. (1993). Managerialism and the Public Services
Scherer F.M. (1999). New Perspectives on Economic Growth and Technological Innovation
Schumpeter J.A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development
Sismondo S. (2003). An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies
Sma, 2005SMA Homepage – Prospective Students (CPE). Retrieved 24 February 2014, , from http://web.mit.edu/sma/students/programmes/cpe.htm
Solou R.M. (1957). Tekhnicheskoe razvitie i agregirovannaya proizvodstvennaya funktsiya [Technical development and aggregate production function]. The Rev. Econ. Stat. (3). 312–320. (in Russian).
Thorp H.H., Goldstein B. (2010). Engines of Innovation: The Entrepreneurial University in the Twenty-First Century
Wilsdon J., Willis R. (2004). See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream
Wisnioski M. Innovation Magazine and the Birth of a Buzzword. IEEE SpectrumTechnology, Engineering, and Science News, 2015. Retrieved 4 January 2018, , from spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/silicon-revolution/innovation-magazine-and-the-birth-of-a-buzzword
Wynne B. (2005). Risk as globalizing “democratic” discourse? Framing subjects and ci-tizens. Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement
Yanow D. (2000). Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis