Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying mechanisms influencing the emergence and success of innovation within national economies: a realist approach

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper uses data from recent OECD (OECD Science, technology and industry scoreboard. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2013b) and Cornell University et al. (The global innovation index 2014. World Intellectual Property Organization, Fontainebleau, 2014) national innovation reports to explain Australia’s poor innovation performance. We adopt a realist approach and apply the technique of retroduction to identify potential causes. While our account is only preliminary, we contend that this technique provides the resources to uncover plausible causes for further, more detailed, causal analysis. We conclude that the retroductive method is one that can be applied to aggregated statistics more generally and could be used by analysts and policy makers in any jurisdiction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Academy of Science. (2012). Physics Decadal Plan 2012–2021: Building on excellence in physics. Canberra: Australian Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackroyd, S., & Fleetwood, S. (Eds.). (2000). Realist perspectives on organisation and management. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, M. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, M. (2007). Making our way through the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Astbury, B., & Leeuw, F. L. (2010). Unpacking black boxes: Mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 363–381. doi:10.1177/1098214010371972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012). 8158.0—Innovation in Australian Business, 2010–2011. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013a). 2013 Labour statistics in brief. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013b). 5368.0.55.006—Characteristics of Australian Exporters, 2012–2013 (Vol. 2015). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics (2003). 8158.0 - Innovation in Australian Business. (2003). Reissue. Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Government Department of Industry. (2012). Australian Innovation System Report 2012. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Government Department of Industry. (2013). Australian innovation system report 2013. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barczak, G., Griffin, A., & Kahn, K. B. (2009). Perspective: Trends and drivers of success in NPD practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA best practices study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, O. (2009). Effects of foreign acquisitions on R&D activity: Evidence from firm-level data for France. Research Policy, 38(6), 1021–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, R. (1978). A realist theory of science. Sussex.: Harvester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, R. (2010). Contexts of interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinarity and climate change. In R. Bhaskar, C. Frank, K. G. Hoyer, P. Naess, & J. Parker (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity and climate change (pp. 1–25). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, K., Healy, M., & Lombardo, L. (1996). Charting national innovation systems: An Australian approach. In Paper presented at the Informal Workshop on National Innovation Systems, Paris, 3 October 1996.

  • Butler, M., Wilkinson, J., & Allen, P. (2010). Exploring innovation in policy-making within central government. Public Policy & Adminstration, 25(2), 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaminade, C., & Edquist, C. (2010). Rationales for public policy intervention in the innovation process: Systems of innovation approach. In R. E. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, & P. Shapira (Eds.), The theory and practice of innovation policy (pp. 95–114). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C., & Overdorf, M. (2000). Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 66–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. M., MacIntyre, P. D., & Cruickshank, J. (2007). A critical realist approach to understanding and evaluating heart health programmes. Health, 11(4), 513–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, A. (1994). Critical realism: An introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s Philosophy. London : Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, J. (2000). A realist theory of health sector management: The case for critical realism. Journal of Management in Medicine, 14(5/6), 262–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell University, INSEAD, & WIPO (2014). In S. Dutta & B. Lanvin (Eds.), The global innovation index 2014. Fontainebleau, Ithaca, and Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization.

  • Cutler, T. (2008). Venturous Australia. Building strength in innovation. London: Cutler & Company Pty Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2004). Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(4), 246–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vaujany, F.-X. (2008). Capturing reflexivity modes in IS: A critical realist approach. Information and Organization, 18(1), 51–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, P., Jackson, P., & Gengatharen, D. (2013). Examining broadband adoption in rural Australia—Modes of reflexivity and the morphogenetic approach. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 965–992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodgson, M., & Innes, P. (2006). Australian innovation in manufacturing: Results from an international survey. http://www.nswbusinesschamber.com.au/NSWBC/media/Misc/Ask%20Us%20How/Australian-Innovation-in-Manufacturing.pdf. Accessed 20 August 2014.

  • Edquist, C. (2011). Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: Identification of systemic problems (or failures). Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(6), 1–29. doi:10.1093/icc/dtr060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, C., & Chaminade, C. (2006). Industrial policy from a systems-of-innovation perspective. European Investment Bank Papers, 11(1), 109–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, P., & Runde, J. (2009). On the identity of technological objects and user innovations in function. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 442–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, P., & Runde, J. (2013). Technological objects, social positions and the transformational model of social activity. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 803–818.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontana, R., Geuna, A., & Matt, M. (2006). Firm size and openness: The driving forces of university-industry collaboration. In Y. Caloghiru, A. Constantelou, & N. Vonortas (Eds.), Knowledge flows in European industry (pp. 305–345). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C. (1995). The ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godin, B. (2004). The New Economy: What the concept owes to the OECD. Research Policy, 33(5), 679–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, R., & Logue, D. (2009). Innovation Australia: How we measure up. In N. Taylor (Ed.), Australia adjusting: Optimising national prosperity in 2025. Melbourne: Committee for the Economic Development of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J., & Chen, K. (2012). Modeling the relative efficiency of national innovation systems. Research Policy, 41(1), 102–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 371–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horrocks, I. (2009). Applying the morphogenetic approach: Outcomes and issues from a case study of information systems development and organisational change in British local government. Journal of Critical Realism, 8(1), 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, S.-C., & Whittington, R. (2011). Agency in national innovation systems: Institutional entrepreneurship and the professionalization of Taiwanese IT. Research Policy, 40(4), 526–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpin, D. S. (1995). Enterprising Nation—Renewing Australia’s Managers to Meet the Challenges of the Asia-Pacific Century. In Report of the Industry Task Force on Leadership and Management Skills. Canberra: Australian Government Pub. Service.

  • Kontos, P. C., & Poland, B. D. (2009). Mapping new theoretical and methodological terrain for knowledge translation: Contributions from critical realism and the arts. Implementation Science, 4(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koutsouris, A. (2012). Facilitating agricultural innovation systems: A critical realist approach. Studies in Agricultural Economics, 114, 64–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlmann, S., Shapira, P., & Smits, R. (2010). Innovation. A systemic perspective: The innovation policy dance. In R. E. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, & P. Shapira (Eds.), The theory and practice of innovation policy (pp. 1–22). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, T. (1995). A realist perspective on contemporary “Economic Theory”. Journal of Economic Issues, 29(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, T. (1997a). Economics and reality. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, T. (1997b). Situated rationality. Journal of Economic Methodology, 4(1), 101–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, T. (2003). Reorienting economics. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, T. (2006). The nature of heterodox economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30, 483–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, T. (2012). Ontology and the study of social reality: Emergence, organisation, community, power, social relations, corporations, artefacts and money. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(2), 345–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J. S., Lu, W. M., & Ho, M. H. C. (2015). National characteristics: innovation systems from the process efficiency perspective. R&D Management, 45(4), 317–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). National innovation systems—analytical concept and development tool. Industry and innovation, 14(1), 95–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahroum, S., & Al-Saleh, Y. (2013). Towards a functional framework for measuring national innovation efficacy. Technovation, 33(10), 320–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malik, K. (2013). Human Development Report 2013. United Nations Development Programme.

  • Markham, S. K. (2013). The impact of front-end innovation activities on product performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(S1), 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. (2004). Using qualitative methods for causal explanation. Field Methods, 16(3), 243–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J., Mutch, A., & Willocks, L. (2013). Critical realism in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 795–802.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, B. (2014, July 28). Door opens to buying foreign submarines. The Australian. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/door-opens-to-buying-foreign-submarines/story-e6frg8yo-1227003572522?=.

  • OECD (2011). OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2011. OECD Publishing.

  • OECD. (2013a). Entrepreneurship at a glance. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013b). OECD Science, technology and industry scoreboard. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1911). Letter to J. H. Kehler In: J. H. Kehler (Ed.): Commens—Digital Companion to C. S. Peirce.

  • Pielke, R. (2004). What future for the policy sciences? Policy Sciences, 37(3–4), 209–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, K., Smith, M., McGittigan, J., Guevara, J. K., Hall, L., & Stegman, E. (2013). IT Metrics: IT Spending and Staffing Report, 2012. Gartner.

  • PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2013). The Startup Economy: How to support tech startups and accelerate. Australian innovation.

  • PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2014). Funding Australia’s future: Innovation & digital technologies. http://www.pwc.com.au/media-centre/2014/innovation-digital-technologies-Apr14.htm. Accessed 1 August 2014.

  • Productivity Commission (2014). PC Productivity Update, April. In Australian Government Productivity Commission (Ed.). Melbourne: Commonwealth of Australia.

  • Rammer, C. (2006). Innovation in Firms. In U. Schmoch, C. Rammer, & H. Legler (Eds.), National systems of innovation in comparison (pp. 107–132). Dordrecht: Spinger.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reserve Bank of Australia (2011). Statement Boxes 2011—Box B: The Mining Sector and the External Accounts.

  • Runde, J. (1998). Assessing causal economic explanations. Oxford Economic Papers, 50, 151–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayer, A. (1992). Method in social science; a realist approach. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharaput, M. (2012). The limits of learning: Policy evaluation and the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation. Canadian Public Administration, 55(2), 248–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, T. (2013, June 6). South Australian ship builders cut out of contracts as Federal Government buys overseas. The Adelaide Advertiser. Retrieved from http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/south-australian-ship-builders-cut-out-of-contracts-as-federal-government-buys-overseas/story-fni6uo1m-1226945174449.

  • Song, M., Podoynitsyna, K., Van Der Bij, H., & Halman, J. I. (2008). Success factors in new ventures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(1), 7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorhildur, J., Avital, M., & Bjørn-Andersen, N. (2013). Generating Value from Open Government Data. In Thirty fourth international conference on information systems, Milan 2013, Milan, 2013.

  • Trounson, A. (2014, April 14). Firms forced to look abroad to fill IT skills gap. The Australian. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/firms-forced-to-look-abroad-to-fill-it-gap/story-e6frgcjx-1226858413137.

  • Walker, R. (2006). Innovation type and diffusion: An empirical analysis of local government. Public Administration, 84(2), 311–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M. (2012). The contribution of mining technology to the economy of Australia -and its Global Impact. http://www.austmine.com.au/Portals/25/Content/News/Attachments/Austmine_Perth%2030%20Jan%202012.pdf. Accessed 1 August 2014.

  • Wirtz, B. W., Schilke, O., & Ullrich, S. (2010). Strategic development of business models: Implications of the Web 2.0 for creating value on the internet. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 272–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum. (2014). The Global Competitiveness Report 2014–2015. Switzerland: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynn, D., & Williams, C. (2012). Principles for conducting critical realist case study research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 787–810.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zachariadis, M., Scott, S., & Barrett, M. (2013). Methodological implications of critical realism for mixed-methods research. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 855–879.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Innovative Practice, School of Business, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia

    Paul Jackson & Philip Dobson

  2. Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Jochen Runde

  3. Alexander von Humboldt-Institut für Internet und Gesellschaft, Berlin, Germany

    Nancy Richter

Authors
  1. Paul Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jochen Runde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philip Dobson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nancy Richter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Jackson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jackson, P., Runde, J., Dobson, P. et al. Identifying mechanisms influencing the emergence and success of innovation within national economies: a realist approach. Policy Sci 49, 233–256 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9237-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9237-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation