 Prinzipien moderner TechnologiepolitikGeorg Erber () No 159, Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin from DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research Abstract: During the last decade a number of principles of modern technology policy emerged from the intensive debate on efficient designs of technology policy to encourage and strengthen the competitiveness of economies. While at the beginning national innovation systems like national economies seemed to be a sufficient framework the ongoing process of globalization of knowledge production and its rapid diffusion changed the perspective. However, each country as a distinct location in a global economy and in an emerging global innovation system has to develop its particular competence to become or remain an attractive partner. A number of principles should be applied as guide lines to design and evaluate the respective technology policy. Nine principles are proposed in the paper. Starting with the destinction of mission versus diffusion oriented technology policies one objective of modern technology policy is to search for an adequate policy mix. Next the concept of network development in innovation systems looks for ways to increase the efficiency of the innovation system. Each institution of the innovation system should become part of a competence centre which link research institutions with innovative companies and government agencies involved in the funding and regulation process of innovation, forming something like a triple helix, a term proposed by Leydesdorff. Competence centres link to each other in the innovation system and compete with others to win market shares in the innovation system. Furthermore each organisation should apply internally and externally the principles of learning with those of lean research organisations. The basic framework, however, to ensure efficiency in the innovation system is that the government establishes a legal and regulatory framework to foster institutional competition in the innovation system so that inefficient institutions are replaced by efficient ones through a self-selection process. Selection might be accomplished by a market mechanism or a continuous evaluation of institutions. Without sufficient scientific reputation or market success no institution should be entitled to permanent funding from public or private sources. The theoretical perfect split of public and private financing would be given by the difference between the private and social rate of return of an innovation activity, so that only the amount of positive externalities which cannot be internalised by private sources should be financed by public ones. Furthermore, giving financial subsidies to institutions should reflect that public funding should be judged by the principle of sustainable economic and social impacts on the innovation system. Since the innovation process usually is associated with the willingness to take risks and face uncertainties one should apply and develop modern techniques of risk analysis and risk control to increase the returns of investments in an innovation activity. Finally, one should take care that the subsidiary principle with respect to the policy institutions is applied especially in the context of diffusion and mission oriented technology policy. On the regional level diffusion policy should be at the centre stage while on the national level governments or even transnational organisations like the EU should concentrate on mission oriented technology policy and on the issue to establish a framework for institutional competition in the innovation system so that each institution in the innovation system faces a level playing field. For Germany in all areas of mission and diffusion oriented technology policy exist substantial inefficiencies. The first and most decisive step to reform, however, would be the introduction of institutional competition in this area to encourage a self-reorganisation process of institutions. Without institutional competition the current funding system has only marginal incentives to overcome their internal inertia. Since there is little or no risk of failure for current institutions, there is a substantial reluctance to rapidly adjust to the changed environment of a globalizing innovation system. Countries or regions, however, who will lead this transition to more efficient innovations systems in a global environment will be significantly more rewarded than those who follow behind. The regions where competence centres in the global innovations system are located will acquire the highest longterm per capita income increases for their regions in the future knowledge based global economy because they enable the region to simultaneously push forward the knowledge frontier and internalise the economic and social benefits of a global knowledge base most efficiently. Pages: 27 p. Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp159 Access Statistics for this paper More papers in Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin from DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research Contact information at EDIRC. |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.