Contemporary Research and Innovation Policy: A Double Disservice?

  • Alexandra Waluszewski
Part of the Higher Education Dynamics book series (HEDY, volume 39)


The background of this chapter is the frustration of some European policy practitioners over the contemporary governmental commission on innovation policy. The policy practitioner’s dilemma is this: how are we to attain national effects through policy investments when the business landscape is characterised by interdependent, transnational business networks? The commissioners expected the policy practitioners’ actions to boost research and technological development (RTD), which would then result in innovation and industrial renewal within the investing nation or region. The best scenario, sketched by the governmental commission, was that the policy practitioners’ actions in terms of research and technological support would lead to innovation, new or renewed companies, increased investments, employment, tax income and growth. It was taken for granted that these benefits would occur within the borders of the community that made the policy investments. But when the policy practitioners started work on implementing this policy, problems arose. The companies and the research environments they faced daily were involved in business networks that by no means stop at any national, regional or local community borders.


Innovation Policy National Border User Network Policy Investment National Innovation System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Baraldi, E., Fors, H., & Houltz, A. (Eds.). (2006). Taking place: “The spatial contexts of science, technology and business”. Sagamore Beach: Science History Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Basalla, G. (1988). The evolution of technology. Cambridge: Cambridge History of Science Series.Google Scholar
  3. Benner, M., & Sörlin, S. (Eds.). (2008). Forska lagom och vara världsbäst: Sverige inför forskningens globala strukturomvandling. Stockholm: SNS Förlag.Google Scholar
  4. Bijker, W. E. (1987). Of bicycles, bakelites and bulbs. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bleiklie, I. (1998). Justifying the evaluative state: New public management ideals in higher ­education. European Journal of Education, 33(3), 299–316.Google Scholar
  6. David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 332–337.Google Scholar
  7. Edquist, C. (2005). Systems of innovation: Perspectives and challenges. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 181–208). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Edquist, C., Hommen, L., & Tsipouri, L. (Eds.). (2000). Public technology procurement and innovation. Boston: Klüwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Eklund, M. (2007). Adoption of the innovation system concept in Sweden. Doctoral dissertation. Uppsala Studies in Economic History, Uppsala, p. 81.Google Scholar
  10. Elzinga, A. (2004). The new production of reductionism in models relating to research policy. In K. Grandin, N. Wormbs, & S. Widmalm (Eds.), The science-industry nexus: History, policy, implications (pp. 277–304). Sagamore Beach: Science History Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Elzinga, A., & Jamison, A. (1995). Changing policy agendas in science and technology. In S. Jasanoff et al. (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 572–597). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The triple helix and the rise of the entrepreneurial university. In K. Granding, N. Wormbs, & S. Widmalm (Eds.), Science and industry nexus: History, policy, implications (pp. 277–304). Sagamore Beach: Science and History Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Etzkowitz, H., & Leyersdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national innovation system and ‘mode 2’ to triple helix to university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ford, I. D. (Ed.). (2001). Understanding business marketing and purchasing (3rd ed.). London: International Thompson.Google Scholar
  15. Ford, I. D., Gadde, L.-E., Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (2003). Managing business relationships (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Freeman, C. (1982). The economics of industrial innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Freeman, C. (2002). Continental, national and sub-national innovation systems – Complementarity and economic growth. Research Policy, 31(2), 191–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fridlund, M. (1999). Den gemensamma utvecklingen: Staten, storföretaget och samarbetet kring den svenska elkraftstekniken [The mutual development: The state, big industry and the collaboration on Swedish electric power technology]. Stockholm: Stehag.Google Scholar
  19. Gadde, L.-E., & Håkansson, H. (2001). Supply network strategies. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Grandin, K., Wormbs, N., & Widmalm, S. (Eds.). (2004). The science-industry nexus. Sagamore Beach: Science History Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Gudeman, S. (2001). The anthropology of economy: Community, market, and culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 293–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Håkansson, H. (Ed.). (1982). International marketing and purchasing of industrial goods – An interaction approach. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Håkansson, H. (Ed.). (1987). Industrial technological development: A network approach. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  26. Håkansson, H., & Johanson, J. (1992). A model of industrial networks. In B. Axelsson & G. Easton (Eds.), Industrial networks: A new view of reality (pp. 28–34). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (Eds.). (1995). Developing relationships in business networks. London: International Thomson.Google Scholar
  28. Håkansson, H., & Waluszewski, A. (2002). Managing technological development: IKEA, the environment and technology. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Håkansson, H., & Waluszewski, A. (2007). Interaction: The only means to create use. In H. Håkansson & A. Waluszewski (Eds.), Knowledge and innovation in business and industry: The importance of using others (pp. 147–167). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Håkansson, H., Ford, I. D., Gadde, L.-E., Snehota, I., & Waluszewski, A. (2009). Business in networks. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  31. Hasselberg, Y., & Petersson, T. (Eds.). (2006). Bäste Broder! Nätverk, entreprenörskap och innovation i svenskt näringsliv. Hedemora: Gidlunds.Google Scholar
  32. Högselius, P. (2010). Lost in translation? Science, technology and the state since the 1970s. In P. Lundin, N. Stenlås, & J. Gribbe (Eds.), Science for welfare and warfare: Technology and state initiative in cold war Sweden. Sagamore Beach: Science and History Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Hoholm, T. (2009). The contrary forces of innovation. An ethnography of innovation processes in the food industry. Doctoral thesis, No. 6. Norwegian School of Management, BI, Oslo.Google Scholar
  34. Hughes, T. P. (1994). Beyond the economics of technology. In O. Granstrand (Ed.), Economics of technology. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publ.Google Scholar
  35. Ingemansson, I. (2010). Success as science but burden for business? On the difficult relationship between scientific advancement and innovation. Doctoral thesis, No. 148. Department of Business Studies, Uppsala University, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  36. Latour, B. (1996). Aramis, or the love of technology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39, 517–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lorenzoni, G., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1995). Creating a strategic center to manage a web of partners. California Management Review, 37(3), 146–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lundin, P., Stenlås, N., & Gribbe, J. (2010). Science for welfare and warfare: Technology and state initiatives in cold war Sweden. Sagamore Beach: Science and History Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Lundvall, B.-Å. (1988). Innovation as an interactive process: From user-producer interaction to national systems of innovation. In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, & L. Soete (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. Lundvall, B.-Å. (Ed.). (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. Lundvall, B.-Å., & Borrás, S. (2005). Science, technology, and innovation policy. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 599–631). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Malerba, F. (2002). Technology and the new economy. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2002). The elusive concept of localization economies: Towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environment and Planning A, 34(3), 429–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marglin, S. A. (2008). The dismal science: How thinking like an economist undermines community. Cambridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  47. Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  49. Nowotny, H., Pestre, D., Schmidt-Assman, E., Shultze-Fieltz, H., & Trute, H. H. (2005). The public nature of science under assault. Hamburg: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. OECD, (2010). Ministerial report on the OECD innovation strategy. Innovation to strengthen growth and address global and social challenges. Scholar
  51. Olson, O., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2005). Public sector accounting reforms in a welfare state in transition. The case of Sweden. In J. Guthrie, C. Humphrey, L. R. Jones, & O. Olson (Eds.), International public financial management reform: Progress, contradictions, and challenges (pp. 223–245). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  52. Pavitt, K. (2004). Changing patterns of usefulness of university research: Opportunities and dangers. In K. Grandin, N. Wormbs, & S. Widmalm (Eds.), The science-industry nexus: History, policy, implications (pp. 119–134). Canton: Science History Publications.Google Scholar
  53. Penrose, E. (1959) ‘The theory of the growth of the firm’. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Piore, M. J., & Sabel, C. F. (1984). The second industrial divide: Possibilities for prosperity. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  55. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nation’s. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  56. Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77–90.Google Scholar
  57. Powell, W. (1998). Learning from collaboration: Knowledge and networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. California Management Review, 40, 228–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the black box: Technology and economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Rosenberg, N. (1994). Exploring the black box: Technology, economics, history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in silicon valley and route 128. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore/London: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Sörlin, S. (2004). Institutssektorn, högskolan och det svenska innovationslandskapet: Observationer och analys av utförande och finansiering av behovsmotiverad forskning i det svenska FOU-systemet. Stockholm: Sister Reports.Google Scholar
  63. Ståhl, B., & Waluszewski, A. (2007). Using knowledge in the model world. Lessons to learn from the economic literature. In H. Håkansson & A. Waluszewski (Eds.), Knowledge and innovation in business and industry. The importance of using others, (pp. 127-146). Routledge Studies in Innovation, Organization and Technology. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Sturgeon, T. J. (2000). How silicon valley came to be. In M. Kenney (Ed.), Understanding silicon valley: The anatomy of an entrepreneurial region (pp. 15–47). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (1997). Managing innovation integrating technological markets and organizational change. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  66. Utterback, J. M., & Abernathy, W. J. (1975). A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, The International Journal of Management Science, 3(6), 639–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Ventkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. von Hippel, E. (2007). Horizontal innovation networks – by and for users. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(2), 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Waluszewski, A. (2004). A competing or co-operating cluster or seven decades of combinatory resources? What’s behind a prospering biotech valley? Scandinavian Journal of Management, 20, 125–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Waluszewski, A. (2006). Hoping for network effects or fearing network effects? The IMP Journal, 1(1), 71–84.Google Scholar
  71. Waluszewski, A. (2011). The policy practitioners dilemma (Vinnova Report 2011:07). The National Policy and the Transnational Networks. Stockholm: Vinnova.Google Scholar
  72. Waluszewski, A., & Håkansson, H. (2007). Economic use of knowledge. In H. Håkansson & A. Waluszewski (Eds.), Knowledge and innovation in business and industry: The importance of using others (pp. 1–27). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  73. Weinberger, H., & Trischler, H. (2005). Engineering Europe: Big technologies and military systems in the making of the 20th century Europe. History and Technology, 21(3), 49–83.Google Scholar
  74. Widmalm, S. (2008). Innovationssamhället. In M. Benner & S. Sörlin (Eds.), Forska lagom och vara världsbäst: Sverige inför forskningens globala strukturomvandling. Stockholm: SNS Förlag.Google Scholar
  75. Wilk, R. R. (1996). Economics and cultures: Foundation of economic anthropology. Oxford: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  76. Yates, J. (2009). How commercial technology users shaped the information age: Historical perspective on life insurance adoption and use of computer technology. In H. Håkansson, A. Waluszewski, F. Prenkert, & E. Baraldi (Eds.), Use of science and technology in business: Exploring the impact of using activity for systems, organizations and people (pp. 27–54). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Science & Technology Studies, Department of Economic HistoryUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations