Abstract
We argue that the present economic crisis reflects the on-going transition towards a networked, knowledge based, globalised economy, and this transition affects the role of industrial policies. From this perspective, we suggest that the State should intervene along three main lines. First, action is needed to make the quality and innovative potential of territories recognisable. Second, substantial investments should be targeted to human capital formation, and to communication skills and infrastructures. Third, policies should be designed to maintain and upgrade skill intensive activities, and to attract high value added foreign investment. A bottom up approach should be adopted in the design of policies, as to favour the self-organization of individuals, creative clusters and communities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The analysis of changes in techno-economic and institutional paradigms has been initiated by Freeman (1984), Perez (1983), and Dosi (1982) and emphasises the role of fundamental clusters of innovations identified as: “changes in key factors” (Perez 1983), “general purpose technologies” (Helpman 1998) or “disruptive innovations” (Downes and Nunes 2014). Changes in paradigms induced by the generation and diffusion of such technologies have historically provided broad avenues that help identify priorities, and hence, influence the direction and intensity of, and co-evolve with, other technical, organisational and institutional innovations that will eventually take place (Nelson 1994; Arthur 2009; Stiglitz and Greenwald 2014).
References
Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York: Free Press.
Bechky, B. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities. Organisation Science, 14(3), 312–330.
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147–162.
Downes, L., & Nunes, P. (2014). Big bang disruption: Strategy in the age of devastating innovation. New York: Penguin.
Freeman, C. (ed.) (1984). Long waves in the world economy. London: Pinter.
Helpman, E. (1998). General purpose technologies and economic growth. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Lucchese, M., Nascia, L., Pianta, M. (2016). Industrial policy and technology in Italy. Economia e politica industriale, Journal of Industrial and Business Economics (this issue).
Mazzucato, M. (2013). The entrepreneurial state. London: Anthem.
Nelson, R. R. (1994). The co-evolution of technology, industrial structure, and supporting institutions. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(1), 47–63.
Perez, C. (1983). Structural change and assimilation of new technologies in the economic and social systems. Futures, 15(4), 357–375.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Røste, R. (2005). Studies of innovation in the public sector. A literature review (Publin Report No. D16). Retrieved from www.step.no/publin/.
Scupola, A., & Zanfei, A. (2016). Governance and innovation in public sector services. Government Information Quarterly,. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.005.
Stiglitz, J. E., & Greenwald, B. C. (2014). Creating a learning society. A new approach to growth, development, and social progress. New York: Columbia University Press.
Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rullani, E., Cozza, C. & Zanfei, A. Lost in transition: systemic innovations and the new role of the state in industrial policy. Econ Polit Ind 43, 345–353 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-016-0045-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-016-0045-6