The Role of State and Non-state Actors in Ensuring the Effectiveness of Innovation Policy

Abstract

In order to understand the successes and failure of innovation policy, taking as an example smart specialisation, it is necessary to recognise that policy processes unfold as a result of interactions between state and non-state actors, in a complex context.

First, taking our cues from political science, it is necessary to recognise that the basic assumptions about the context for policy design and implementation are very different from the assumptions in neat, linear models of policymaking which assume that policy emerges from informed debate and consensus (Weible and Sabatier 2017). These assumptions are: ambiguity, (2) time constraints, (3) problematic policy preferences, (4) unclear technology, (5) fluid participation and (6) stream independence.

Analysed as a policy process, in order for smart specialisation to be effective, it would have to be adopted within the three streams and at all geographical scales. Policymakers and non-state actors would have to recognise the lack of better innovation policy as a problem, but also recognise the central tenets of S3 (regionalisation of policy, EDP, prioritisation) as the key to address this problem. The networks of individuals and organisations working within the problem stream of innovation, would also have to understand and engage with this concept, and provide their technical support to its implementation. Finally, the state and non-state actors in the political stream, would have to accept smart specialisation as a viable solution to a problem that they accepted as relevant and be willing to break with, or adapt, previous innovation policies (assuming that they existed) in order to implement this new one. All these assumptions are problematic and need to be tested empirically.