Abstract
In this paper, we argue that a new policy model for science and technology is needed and must be evolutionary in nature. The paper proposes utilizing the idea innovation network theory as a framework for assessing sectoral innovation patterns and identifies six types, or “arenas,” of research that are linked to innovation within these networks. Following the idea innovation network theory, the paper argues that two societal trends, the fragmentation of markets and the growth of knowledge, are driving organizations toward greater functional differentiation. Successful innovation will occur when these differentiated organizations become closely linked within innovation networks that integrate the arenas of research. The paper argues that this framework has predictive power, in that it allows the identification of path-dependent blockages or gaps within idea innovation chains that prevent the emergence of effective innovation networks in different countries. Policy makers can play an important role by fostering the development of tightly coupled networks that include organizations involved in each of the types of research. The paper provides empirical support for the framework using a cross-national European study of the telecommunications and pharmaceutical industries.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
It is important to note, however, that a sectoral focus does not preclude recognition of the possibility cross-sectoral cooperation or convergence. Indeed, a sectoral focus would highlight if and when they occur or should occur. We recognize that sectoral boundaries are not only permeable but dynamic as well.
High-tech technological sectors are those in which at least 4 percent of the sales dollar is invested in research and product development. NSF uses 5%, but this excludes the two very important sectors of chemicals and automobiles.
We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this observation.
Although Dosi et al. (2006) argue that the European paradox does not exist because the United States on average has a higher rate of publications per researcher and with higher citations and therefore Europe cannot expect as high a rate of industrial innovation, this does vary by sector, which is one reason why policy evaluations require a sectorial approach rather than the global analyses that characterize the work in the national systems of innovation.
One major exception is Tassey (2009).
References
Adams, J. (2010). Science heads east. New Scientist, 205(2742), 24–25.
Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1999). Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Science, 45, 905–917.
Alter, C., & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations working together. Newbury Park: Sage.
Ambos, B., & Schlegelmilch, B. (2007). Innovation and control in the multinational firm: A comparison of political and contingency approaches. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 473–486.
Archibugi, D., & Pianta, M. (1996). Measuring technological change through patents and innovation surveys. Technovation, 16, 451–468.
Arnold, E. (2004). Evaluating research and innovation policy: A systems world needs systems evaluations. Research Evaluation, 13, 3–17.
Augustine, N. R. (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing American for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science Press.
Blau, P. M. (1970). A formal theory of differentiation in organizations. American Sociological Review, 35, 201–218.
Browning, L. D. (1995). Building cooperation in a competitive industry: SEMATECH and the semiconductor industry. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 113–151.
Campbell, J. L. (2004). Institutional change and globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Casper, S. (2006). Exporting the Silicon Valley to Europe: How useful is comparative institutional theory? In J. Hage & M. T. H. Meeus (Eds.), Innovation, science and institutional change: A research handbook (pp. 483–504). London: Oxford Press.
Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Collins, P. D., Hage, J., & Hull, F. M. (1988). Organizational and technological predictors of change in automaticity. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 512–543.
Constant, E. W. (2002). Why evolution is a theory about stability: Constraint, causation and ecology in technological change. Research Policy, 31, 1241–1256.
Criscuolo, P., & Narula, R. (2007). Using multi-hub structures for international R&D: Organizational inertia and the challenges of implementation. Management International Review, 47, 639–660.
David, P. A., & Foray, D. (1995). Assessing and expanding the science and technology knowledge base. STI Review. OECD.
Donohue, T. (2010). Testimony to the House Committee on science and technology on the reauthorization of the American COMPETES Act, 2010 Testimony by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Dosi, G. (1988). The nature of the innovation process. In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, & L. Soete (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory. London: Pinter.
Dosi, G., Llerena, P., & Labini, S. (2006). Science-technology-industry links and industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called “European Paradox”. Research Policy, 35, 1450–1464.
Doz, Y. L., & Hamel, G. (1998). Alliance advantage: The art of creating value through partnering. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Duray, R. (2002). Mass customization origins: Mass or custom manufacturing? International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 22, 314–328.
Dussauge, P., & Garrette, B. (1999). Cooperative strategy. New York: Wiley.
Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter.
Edquist, C., & Hommen, L. (1999). Systems of innovation: Theory and policy for the demand side. Technology in Society, 21, 63–79.
Estrin, J. (2008). Closing the innovation gap: Reigniting the spark in a global economy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartsman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Gittelman, M. (2006). National institutions, public-private knowledge flows, and innovation performance: A comparative study of the biotechnology industry in the US and France. Research Policy, 35, 1052–1068.
Gomes-Casseres, B. (1996). The alliance revolution: The new shape of business rivalry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Guerrieri, P., & Tylecote, A. (1998). Cultural and institutional determinants of national technical advantage. In R. Coombs, K. Green, & V. Walsh (Eds.), Technological change and organization. Aldershot: Elgar.
Hage, J. (1980). Theories of organizations: Form, process, and transformation. New York: Wiley.
Hage, J., & Hollingsworth, J. R. (2000). A strategy for the analysis of idea innovation networks and institutions. Organization Studies, 21, 971–1004.
Hage, J., & Meeus M. T. H. (2006). Innovation, science and institutional change: A handbook of research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hage, J., & Mote, J. (2008). Transformational organizations and institutional change: The case of the Institut Pasteur and French science. Socio-Economic Review, 6, 313–336.
Hage, J., & Powers, C. (1992). Post-industrial lives: Roles and relationships in the 21st century. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Hakansson, H., & Laage-Hellman, J. (1984). Developing a network R&D strategy. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1, 224–237.
Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage (p. 540). New York: Oxford University Press.
Harbison, J. R., & Pekar, P. (1998). Smart alliances: A practical guide to repeatable success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hollingsworth, J. R., & Boyer, R. (1999). Contemporary capitalism: The embeddedness of institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jordan, G. B. (2006). factors influencing advances in basic and applied research: Variation due to diversity in research profiles. In J. Hage & M. T. H. Meeus (Eds.), Innovation, science and institutional change: A research handbook (pp. 173–195). London: Oxford Press.
Jordan, G., Hage, J., & Mote, J. (2007). A theories-based systemic framework for evaluating diverse portfolios of scientific work park two: Macro indicators and policy indicators. Science and Public Policy, 34, 731–741.
Kao, J. (2007). Innovation nation: How America is losing its innovative edge, why it matters and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Free Press.
Kline, S. J., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In R. Landau & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth (pp. 275–306). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2006). Triple Helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems: Introduction to the special issue. Research Policy, 35, 1441–1449.
Logar, N. (2011). Scholarly science policy models and real policy, RSD for SciSIP in US Mission Agencies. Policy Sciences, 44, 249–266.
Luthje, C., Herstatt, C., & von Hippel, E. (2005). User innovators and “local” information: The case of mountain biking. Research Policy, 34, 951–965.
Lundvall, B. Å., Johnson, B., Andersen, E. S., & Dalum, B. (2002). National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy, 31, 213.
Malerba, F. (2005). Sector systems: How and why innovation differs across sectors. In J. Faberberg, D. Mowery, & R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 380–406). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. (1993). Technological regimes and firm behavior. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2, 45–72.
Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. (1997). Technological regimes and sectoral patterns of innovative activities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6, 83–117.
Marburger, J. (2009). Science, technology and innovation in a 21st century context. Policy Sciences, 44, 209–213.
Marburger, J. (2012). Dimensions of innovation in a technology-intensive economy. Policy Sciences, 45, 89–96.
Members of the Committee for Rising Above the Gathering Storm. (2010). Rapidly approaching category 5. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Meri, T. (2009). Eurostat: Statistics in focus.
Metcalfe, J. S. (1998). Evolutionary economics and creative destruction. London: Routledge.
Mohrman, S. A., Galbraith, J. R., & Monge, P. (2006). Network attributes impacting the generation and flow of knowledge within and from the basic science community. In J. Hage & M. Meeus (Eds.), Innovation science and industrial change: A research handbook (pp. 196–216). London: Oxford Press.
Molas-Gallart, J. (2006). Toward theory-led evaluation: The experience of European science, technology, and innovation policies. The American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 64–82.
Mowery, C. D., & Rosenberg, N. (1998). Paths of innovation: Technological change in the 20th century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis (p. 541). New York: Oxford University Press.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1977). In search of useful theory of innovation. Research Policy, 6, 36–76.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Evolutionary theorizing in economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16, 23–46.
NRC. (2004). Accelerating technology transition: Bridging the valley of death for materials and processes in defense systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NSF. (2008). Science and engineering indicators, 2008. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology Community. Organization Science, 15, 5–21.
Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13, 343–373.
Pavitt, K. (1990). What we know about the strategic management of technology. California Management Review, 32, 17.
Pine, B. J. (1993). Mass customization: The new frontier in business competition. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.
Powell, W. W. (1998). Learning from collaboration: Knowledge and networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. California Management Review, 40, 228–240.
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116–145.
Rammert, W. (2006). Two styles of knowing and knowledge regimes: Between ‘exploitation’ and ‘exploration’ under conditions of functional specialization or fragmental distribution. In J. Hage & M. T. H. Meeus (Eds.), Innovation, science and institutional change: A research handbook (pp. 256–286). London: Oxford Press.
Robinson, D. K. R., Rip, A., & Mangemartin, V. (2007). Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology. Research Policy, 36, 871–879.
Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2007). The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity in incumbent firm research. Research Policy, 36, 832–849.
Tassey, G. (2009). Rationales and mechanisms for revitalizing U.S. manufacturing R&D strategies. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Van Waarden, B. F., & Oosterwijk, H. G. M. (2006). Turning tracks? Path dependency, technological paradigm shifts, and organizational and institutional change. In J. Hage & M. T. H. Meeus (Eds.), Innovation, science, and institutional change: A research handbook (pp. 443–464). London: Oxford Press.
van Waarden, B. F., Unger, B., Oosterwijk, H. G. M., Kaiser, R., & Schienstock, G. (2003). Building bridges between ideas and markets: National systems of innovation and networks in the idea-innovation chain in science-based industries. Final report of TSER-funded project parts I and II. European Commission.
Acknowledgments
This article is a revised version of a paper presented at the 2006 Atlanta Conference on Science and Technology Policy. We are grateful for the comments and suggestions of anonymous reviewers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hage, J., Mote, J.E. & Jordan, G.B. Ideas, innovations, and networks: a new policy model based on the evolution of knowledge. Policy Sci 46, 199–216 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9172-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9172-8