On some conceptual bases and approaches to the evaluation of innovation policy: theoretico-methodological analysis and empirical research | Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ekonomika – Tomsk State University Journal of Economics. 2019. № 45. DOI: 10.17223/19988648/45/3

On some conceptual bases and approaches to the evaluation of innovation policy: theoretico-methodological analysis and empirical research

The article discusses the conceptual framework and theoretical approaches to the evaluation of innovation policy in modern conditions. In particular, on the basis of empirical research, the author attempts to identify signs confirming whether the European countries organize and evaluate the innovation policy of a systematic approach, and if so, what characterizes them. The paper also provides a comparative analysis of conceptual models that attempt to explain the relationship between scientific and technological research and market opportunities for innovation. This comparative analysis is based on a multi-level model of innovation policy evaluation. This study also provides empirical evidence on how European Union countries organize their innovation policy assessment practices. The empirical evaluation is based on four attributes proposed by the author, which determine the ideal model of innovation policy evaluation. At the same time, the study presents a comparative analysis of Russia in the context of the BRICS countries, and on the basis of this analysis, an empirical generalization is carried out indicating that these countries do not have enough organizational and complementary capabilities to match the scale of innovative advantages observed in countries with high per capita income. This study is an attempt to develop and apply a new conceptual framework for macro-strategic planning of innovative development of Russia and can contribute to the development of effective criteria for assessing its sustainable innovative growth in modern conditions.

Download file

Counter downloads: 169

Keywords

инновационная политика, оценка инновационной политики, модели оценки, охват, системная перспектива, временной характер, экспертиза, innovation policy, evaluation of innovation policy, evaluation models, coverage, system perspective, time character, expertise

Authors

Name	Organization	E-mail
Matrizaev B.J.	Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation	matrizaev@mail.ru

Всего: 1

References

Абалкин Л.И. Возвращение в политическую экономию // Эко. 2009. № 1. С. 142-152.

Гохберг Л.М. (ред.) Прогноз научно-технологического развития Российской Федерации: 2030. М. : Министерство образования и науки Российской Федерации; Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики», 2014.

Идрисов Г.И., Княгинин В.Н., Кудрин А.Л., Рожкова Е.С. Новая технологическая революция: вызовы и возможности для России // Вопросы экономики. 2018. № 4. С. 5-25.

Леонтьев В. Избранные произведения : в 3 т. / науч. ред., вступ. статья А. Г. Гранберга. М. : Экономика, 2006-2007.

Маркс К. Капитал : Критика политической экономики. Т. 1, кн. 1: Процесс производства капитала. М. : Политиздат, 1988. 891 с.

Матризаев Б.Д. Макростратегии инновационного развития и глобальный экономический рост: Макроэкономический анализ, тренды, прогнозы. М. : URSS, 2018. 256 с.

Матризаев Б.Д. Глобальное инновационное лидерство: макроконтуры и моделирование его концептуальной основы // Муниципальная академия. 2018. № 1. С. 85-91.

Медведев Д.А. Россия-2024: Стратегия социально-экономического развития // Вопросы экономики. 2018. № 10. С. 5-28.

Яковец Ю.В. Глобальные экономические трансформации XXI века. М., 2011.

Aiginger, K., Falk, R., Reinstaller A., 2009. Evaluation of Government Funding in RTDI From a Systems Perspective in Austria: Synthesis Report [reaching Out to the Future Needs Radical Change; Towards a New Policy for Innovation, Science and Technology in Austria: the Summary Report Is Based on Nine Special Reports]. WIFO, 56-76.

Aranguren, M.J., Magro, E., Wilson, J.R., 2017. Regional competitiveness policy evaluation as a transformative process: from theory to practice. Environ. Plan. C: Politics Space 35, 703-720.

Arnold, E., 2004. Evaluating research and innovation policy: a systems world needs systems evaluations. Res. Eval. 13, 3-17.

Borras, S., 2011. Policy learning and organizational capacities in innovation policies. Sci. Public Policy 38, 725-734.

Borras, S., H0jlund, S., 2015. Evaluation and policy learning: the learners' perspective. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 54, 99-120.

Collier, D., Laporte, J., Seawright, J., 2008. Typologies: forming concepts and creating categorical variables. In: Box-Steffensmeier, J., Brady, H.E., Collier, D. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 152-173.

Cunningham, Pea., 2007. Policy Mix Peer Reviews: Country Report. United Kingdom. a Report of the CREST Policy Mix Expert Group, Brussels.

Cunningham, P., Edler, J., Flanagan, K., Laredo, P., 2016. The innovation policy mix. In: Edler, J., Cunningham, P., Gok, A., Shapira, P. (eds.), Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Dahler-Larsen, P., 2012. The Evaluation Society. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. Daly, M., Christensen, M.L., 2016. The Effect of Multiple Participations in the Danish Innovation and Research Support System. Centre for Economic Business Research (CEBR), Copenhagen, 100-150.

DASTI, 2014. The Short-run Impact on Total Factor Productivity Growth of the Danish Innovation and Research Support System, Research and Innovation: Analysis and Evaluation No. 2. Copenhagen, 67-87.

Department_of_Jobs, Ea.I., 2015. Evaluation of Enterprise Supports for Enterprise: Synthesis Report and Conclusions. Dublin, 77-79.

Edler, J., 2007. Policy Mix Peer Reviews: Country Report. Lithuania, a Report of the CREST Policy Mix Expert Group, Brussels.

Edler, J., Ebserberger, B., Lo, V., 2008. Improving policy understanding by means of secondary evaluation. R&D Eval. 17, 175-186.

Edler, J., Berger, M., Dinges, M., Gok, A., 2012. The practice of evaluation in innovation policy in Europe. Res. Eval. 21, 167-182.

Edquist, C., 2005. Systems of innovation. Perspectives and challenges. In: Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

EFI, 2017. Report on Research, Innovation and Technological Performance in Germany 2017. EFI, Berlin.

Feller, I., 2007. Mapping the frontiers of evaluation of public-sector R&D programs. Sci. Public Policy 34, 681-690.

Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E., Laranja, M., 2011. Reconceptualising the' policy mix' for innovation. Res. Policy 40, 702-713.

Foray, D., Goddard, J., Goenaga, X., Landabaso, M., McCann, P., Morgan, K., Nau-welaers, C., Ortega-Argiles, R., 2012. Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisations (RIS3). European Commission, Brussels, 864-873.

Goertz, G., 2006. Social Science Concepts. A User's Guide. Princeton University Press, Research Policy 48 (2019) 312-321, Princeton.

Hage, J., Jordan, G., Mote, J., 2007. A theory-based innovation systems framework for evaluating diverse portfolios of research, part two: macro indicators and policy interventions. Sci. Public Policy 34, 731-741.

Howlett, M., Rayner, J., 2007. Design principles for policy mixes: cohesion and coherence in ‘new governance arrangements'. Policy Soc. 26 (4), 1-18.

Jordan, G.B., Hage, J., Mote, J., 2008. A theories-based systemic framework for evaluating diverse portfolios of scientific work, part 1: micro and meso indicators. New Dir. Eval. 2008, 7-24.

Kapil, N., 2013. Poland - Enterprise Innovation Support Review: From Catching up to Moving Ahead. World Bank, Washington DC, 11-18.

Koenraad, D., Veugelers, R., 2015. In: Overheid, V. (ed.), Vlaams Indicatorenboek, Brussels.

Kuhlmann, S., Boekholt, P., Georghiou, L., Guy, K., Heraud, J.-A., Laredo, P., Lemola, T., Loveridge, D., Luukkonen, T., Moniz, A., Polt, W., Rip, A., Sanz-Menendez, L., Smits, R.E., 1999. Improving Distributed Intelligence in Complex Innovation Systems, Munich Personal RePEc Archive.

Kuhlmann, S., Shapira, P., Smits, R.E., 2010. Introduction. A systemic perspective: the innovation policy dance. In: Smits, R.E., Kuhlmann, S., Shapira, P. (Eds.), The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy. An International Research Handbook. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 1-22.

Lundvall, B.-A., 1992. National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter, London, 66-78.

Magro, E., Wilson, J.R., 2013. Complex innovation policy systems: towards an evaluation mix. Res. Policy 42, 1647-1656.

Magro, E., Wilson, J.R., 2015. Evaluating territorial strategies. In: Valdaliso, J.M., Wilson, J.R. (Eds.), Strategies for Shaping Territorial Competitiveness. Routledge, Abingdon, UK and New York, USA, 344-378.

Martin, B.R., Nightingale, P., Yegros-Yegros, A., 2012. Science and technology studies:exploring the knowledge base. Res. Policy 41, 1182-1204.

Molas-Gallart, J., Davies, A., 2006. Toward theoryled evaluation: the experience of European science, technology, and innovation policies. Am. J. Eval. 27, 64-82.

Nelson, R.R., 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.

OECD, 2016. OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Lithuania 2016. OECD, Paris, 25-28.

OECD, 2017. OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Finland 2017. OECD, Paris, 3033.

Office_of_the_Government_of_the_Czech_Republic, 2013. Methodology of Evaluation of Research Organizations and Evaluation of Finished Programmes (Valid for Years 2013-2015). Prague.

Sanderson, I., 2002. Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Adm. 80, 1-22.

Sartori, G., 1970. Concept misformation in comparative politics. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 64, 1033-1053.

Smits, R., Kuhlmann, S., 2004. The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy. Int. J. Foresight Innov. Policy 1, 4-32.

Swedberg, R., 2012. Theorizing in sociology and social sciences: turning to the context of discovery. Theory Soc. 41, 1-40.