from the traditional push towards more user-driven innovation strategies in the information and communications technologies domain has urged companies to place the user at the core of their innovation process in a more systematic way.
and communication technologies (ICT) has been challenged in various ways over the last few decades. Due to extensive convergeenc in the domains of communication, consumer electronics, computing
2006), influenced by the altered role of the technology user as an important stakeholder. Confronted with almost unlimited choices,
co-funded by the Interdisciplinary Institute for Broadband Technology (IBBT), and a consortium of companies (I-City, Microsoft and Concentra).
Whereas the former are characterrize by technology-centred strategies and limited user involvement the latter acknowledge the crucial role of users in the innovation process (Rickards, 2003;
it remains difficult to create a meaningful synergy between users and technology in the field of ICT development.
Theoretical perspectives Interplay between technological and societal forces The relationship between technology and society has already been studied from various perspectives.
The idea of‘technological determinism''which consideer technology as the prime mover in transformation, and which propagates the industry's‘push'perspectiive has dominated the theoretical debate for several decades.
It largely ascribes changes in society to technological advances, which are assumed thus to have important social consequences (Haddon et al.,
2005). ) This theory of‘technological determinism'fits into the‘diffusion of innovations'framework (Rogers, 1995),
which is dedicated to the adoption and diffusion of new technologies in society. Technollog adoption is assumed to follow a predictable path
and is considered to be influenced by‘change agents'(e g. private firms, influential individuals etc.).In the theory of diffusionism, the first group of people who adopt the new technology (innovators
and early adopters) are seen as catalysts for the successsiv waves of adoption. The final aim is to reach the rest of the market,
Currently, she works as a researcher at MICT (Research group for Media and Informattio and Communications technologies (ICT)( website<www. mict. be affiliated
He also teaches innovation research and new communication technologies at Ghent University. Wout Joseph holds a MSC in electrical engineering from Ghent University (2000.
One of them is the social shaping of technology framework, which focuses on the daily use of technology and stresses the power of human actors and societal forces (Williams and Edge, 1996;
Lievrouw, 2006. This social constructivist vision aims to make technollog development more user-and human-centred.
Closely related to the social shaping perspective is the social construction of technology (SCOT) approoac (Bijker and Law, 1992), in
In the SCOT perspective, it is assumed that negotiatiio between certain social groups influences the construction and emergence of new technologies (Bijker and Law, 1992;
) Although both approaches emphasize the interactiio between technological and societal forces, they have been criticized for their rather linear social determiinism Other theories have a less linear view:
which states that technology and people are part of sociotechhnica networks, which influence the shaping, forms and uses of (new technologies.
This and other approaches try to focus on technological developmeen from a mutual shaping or interactionism point of view (Lievrouw, 2006.
They provide us with a theoretical basis for uniting the technology-centred with the user-or human-centred vision,
since the successful adoption and diffusion of technology is ascribed to the continuous interaction between technoloogica and societal forces (Rickards, 2003;
Trott, 2003; Boczkowski, 2004. User-driven innovation In this new context, the notion of user-led or userdriive innovation has assumed a prominent role.
have been supplemented by alternative analytical methods (e g. archetype reseaarch personas, scenarios, proxy technology assesssmen etc. from various disciplines (e g. design, foresight, fault tree analysis, anthropology etc.
interaactiv testing and marketing of (new) mobile technology applications (Schumacher and Niitamo, 2008; Følstad, 2008. They can be seen as humancenntri systemic innovation instruments,
and at a more latent level that are quite difficult to grasp User involvement in future technology analysis Science and Public policy February 2010 54 narrow and technology-centric scope of many projects.
and technology The second challenge concerns the problem of integraatin the knowledge being gathered by multidiscipliinar teams,
Using technologies such as Wi-fi, Bluetooth, general pocket radio service (GPRS) and universal mobile telecommunications system (UMTS),
Althooug the test users were more than averagely intereeste in mobile technologies, the explorative nature of this project and the open access to the panel justified the choice of this research setting.
investigating market-oriented, sociological, usability, legal, technological and social networking issues. Finally, the third stage (test market and pilotinng consisted of an evaluation of the results from the second stage on an individual application level
but might also generate revenues for technology suppliers. One of the major challenges at this stage was not only to successfully involve users in this early part of the process,
but also to overcome users'limited capacity to imagine future technological opportunities. First extensive desk research was conducted
This invenntor was used as background information to familiiariz the researchers with the possibilities of mobile technologies.
Users oftte keep referring to familiar technologies such as multimedia messaging services, phone calls etc. and find it difficult to empathize with other users'lifestyyles e g. a 25-year-old reflects only on his daily Innovation-development process Prior-to-launch Post-launch R&d Opportunity identification Concept design Concept development
'They then reflected on how mobile technologies could facilitaat these activities. The archetypes were used to refllec on the activities of people with other lifestyles.
and technological limitations. 47‘wild ideas'were generated in these sessions, all original and very useful for subsequent stages of the research project.
Clusters and single applications were ranked on the basis of the respondennts interest level (Table 4). The overall average interest ranking for all the clusters showed that the most important innovations in these mobile applicatiion are not the most high-tech ones
daily tasks'more efficiently by mobile 0. 812 More effective healthcare 0. 812 Mobile high-tech 0. 790 Mobile help for study
Q2, Q5 and Q6 User involvement in future technology analysis Science and Public policy February 2010 60 Conclusion In this paper, we have focused on the shift from traditiiona technology push to more user-oriented and user
Drawing on a number of theoretical frameworks that have studied the relationship between technology and users/society in greater depth,
notwithstanding this ongoing broadening and despite the emphasis on such interdisciplinary approaches, it still remains difficult to create a meaningful synergy between useer and technology.
Given the implications of the notion of userdriive innovation and the traditional tension betwwee user-and technology-centred strategies,
even in living lab research the focus is still primarily on a certain technology or new application (e g. mobile TV),
Shaping technology/Building society: Studies in Socio-Technical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Boczowski, P J 2004. The mutual shaping of technology and sociiet in videotex newspapers:
beyond the diffusion and social shaping perspectives. The Information society, 20 (4), 255 267. Corrie, B H, T Wong, S Zimmerman, A s Marsh, J Patrick et al. 2003.
diffusions of innovations v social shaping of technology. In The Handbooo of New Media, L Lievrouw and S Livingstone (eds.
the construction of‘the social'in designing new technologies. In Everyday Innovatoors Researching the Role of Users in Shaping I's, L Haddon, E Mante, B Sapio, K-H Kommonen, L Fortunati and A Kant (eds.
Marketing and Selling Technology Products to Mainstream Customers. Oxford, UK: Capstone. Pine, J B and J H Gilmore 1999.
The social shaping of Technology research Policy, 25 (6), 865 899. Warnke, P and G Heimeriks 2008.
Disruptive technologies, services, or business models? Wireless Personal Communicatioons 45 (4), 569 583
Science and Public policy February 2010 0302-3427/10/010063-16 US$12. 00 Beech tree Publishing 2010 63 Science and Public policy, 37 (1 february 2010, pages
http://www. ingentaconnect. com/content/beech/spp Impact of Swiss technology policy on firm innovation performance: an evaluation based on a matching approach Spyros Arvanitis, Laurent Donzé and Nora Sydow This paper investigates the impact of the promotional activities of The swiss Commission of Technology
and Innovation (CTI) on the innovation performance of the supported firms based on a matched-pairs analysis of 199 firms supported by the CTI in the period 2000 2002.
There have also been some recent prograamme for the promotion of specific technologies (e g. Medtech, Topnano21),
have also been applied to evaluate the technology programmes of European countries (see Almus and Czarnitzki, 2003;
This study was supported financially by The swiss Federal office for Professional Education and Technology. Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 64 avoids the functional form restrictions implicit in running a regression of some type.
A brief description of the approach pursued in this paper is as follows: we identified the subsidized firms in the period 2000 2002 from the CTI database.
and provide a summary and some implications for technology policy. Conceptual framework Technology policy: public fiscal policies to support innovation Most OECD countries use large amounts of public funds to support activities that are intended to enhaanc innovation in the business sector.
These funds are used often to provide direct support for private sector research and innovation. A further way of supporting private investment in innovation is through tax incentives for R&d expenditures (see Jaumotte and Pain, 2005 for a survey of the main fiscal policies to support innovation.
Swiss technology policy There is a long tradition in Switzerland of refraining from directly funding business firms for innovation activities.
He has published extensivvel on the economics of innovation, technology diffusion, determinants of the performance of firms,
Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 65 consensus not only among political actors but also among organizations representing business interests.
There have also been programmes for the promotion of specific technologies (e g. Medtech Topnano21) but this kind of specific support has always been of minor importance.
and a public partner, is fundamental to Swiss technology policy. To the best of our knowledge, it is unique in Europe as a main promotional policy. 2 Methods of evaluation of measures of technology policy Evaluating the outcomes of subsidized projects is difficult,
both because of the difficulties in estimatiin the wider social benefits that they generate and because of the difficulties in assessing
Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of technology policy Recent overviews of the empirical literature suggest that the empirical evidence as to the effectiveness of subsidies is not homogeneous (David et al.
and a public partner, is fundamental to Swiss technology policy. To the best of our knowledge, it is unique in Europe as a main promotional policy Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 66 either matching approaches (as in this paper) or selecctio
correction approaches. Most studies use contemporraneou data on the states of subsidized and non-subsidized firms (as in this paper.
Finallly in three studies some technology diffusion measure is chosen as the goal variable. Most studies Table 1. Summary of selected empirical studies Study/country Policy instrument being evaluated Number of firms Approach Impact on target variable Sakakibara (1997),
2002), Switzerland Programme of promoting use of Computer Integrated Manufacturing Technologies (CIMT)( CIM Programme, 1990 1996) 463 Selection correction:
+-positive (negative) and statistically significant effect at 10%test level Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 67 find a positive policy effect but in some cases
The projects in the fields of machiiner and apparatus construction as well as informattio technology (software) amounted to about 33%of all projects
So-called futureorieente technologies such as biotechnology (3. 6%of projects, 4. 5%of subsidies) and nanotechnology (5. 7%of projects, 3. 8%of subsidies) do not seem to have been promoted particularly.
%Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 68 significantly lower than the respective share of projeect of these scientific fields.
subsidy per project (in CHF) Construction technology 27 4. 3 3, 801,686 3. 1 140,803 Biology 23 3. 6 5, 462,365 4. 5 237,494 Electrical machinery/electronics 32 5. 0 6
Material sciences 56 8. 8 13,992, 873 11.6 249,873 Microelectronics 48 7. 6 12,810, 767 10.6 266,891 Nanotechnology 36 5
CTI database, authors'calculations Table 3. Subsidized enterprises by scientific field 2000 2002 Scientific field Number of firms Percentage Construction technology 11 5. 5
48 24.1 Microelectronics 21 10.6 Nanotechnology 6 3. 0 Process engineering 16 8. 0 Production/management concepts 14 7. 0 Other
CTI database, authors'calculations Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 69 firms which are subsidized not out
G g a-=0 N a Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 70 (6) where and is the kernel7 at the point In a fifth step,
5%test level Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 71 innovation performance than non-subsidized firms (at the 5%test level.
5%test level Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 72‘low-subsidy'firms from that of the respective groups of non-subsidized firms.
and universities that provide cooperating firms with knowledge that is primarily of high technological value. This does not mean that higher subsidies cannot generate (additioonal economic success:
the technological orientaatio of subsidized projects is quite broad, also covering currently fashionable fields such as biotechnnolog and nanotechnology.
Further, subsidized firms represent a wide spectrum of manufacturing firms, the concentration on firms for machinery,
All this is also in accordance with the general principles of The swiss technology policy tending to be‘non-activist',providiin primarily for the improvement of framework condittion for private innovation activities.
Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 73 Appendix Table A1.
structure of answering enterprises by scientific field Scientific field Number of addressed enterprises Number of answering enterprises Percentage share of answering enterprises Construction technology 16 11 68.8
33 20 60.6 Microelectronics 27 16 59.3 Nanotechnology 6 5 83.3 Process engineering 29 15 51.7 Production/management concepts 23 14
high-tech manufacturing; definition: high-tech manufacturing: chemistry, plastics, machinery, electrical machinery, electronics/instruments; modern service industries: banking/insurance, computer services;
other business services; traditional manufacturing: food/beverage/tobacco, textiles, clothing/leather; wood processing, paper, printing, glass/stone/clay, metal, metalworking, watches, other manufacturing, energy;
Italian (continued) Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 74appendix (continued) Table A3.
*See footnotes to Table A3 for key (continued) Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 75 Appendix (continued) Table A5.
*See footnotes to Table A3 for key (continued) Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science and Public policy February 2010 76 Appendix (continued) Table A7.
*See footnotes to Table A3 for key (continued) Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science
and Feller (2007) for recent reviews of the central issues related to the evaluation of the effectiveness of technology programmes.
technology policy see OECD (2006b) and European commission (2008. Lepori (2006) gives a longteer analysis of public research policy primarily with respect to universities and public research organizations.
*See footnotes to Table A3 for key Impact of technology policy on innovation by firms Science
Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research policy, 29 (4/5), 627 655.
Economics of Innovation and New technology, 9 (2), 111 148. Caliendo, M and R Huber 2005.
Matched-pair analysis based on business survey data to evaluate the policy of supporting the adoption of advannce manufacturing technologies by Swiss firms, KOF Working Paper No. 65, July 2002.
Evaluating technology programmes: tools and methods. Research policy, 29 (4/5), 657 678. Görg, H and E Strobl 2007.
Science, Technology and Industry Board Innovatiio and Performance in the Global economy. Paris: OECD. Pointner, W and C Rammer 2005.
In Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology Towards Best Practices, pp 225 253. OECD: Paris. Silverman, R 1986.
*Ron Johnston2 and Fabiana Scapolo3 1mark Boden, European commission Joint research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville, Spain 2professor Ron Johnston, Australian Centre for Innovation
Shaping and Driving Structural and Systematic Transformations organised by the Institute of Prospective Technological Studies of the European commission's Joint research Centre (JRC-IPTS) was held in May 2011.
Drivers of dynamic processes of change and sudden disruptive transformations range from rapid technological changes to shifts in social norms, values and lifestyles.
This instruumen adapts the methodology of technology roadmapping to addressing critical innovation policy challennge at the level of national and regional innovation systems, within a global context.
and it combines analysis of enabling technologies, applications, products, markets and drivers with empirical analysis of the policy instruments that are utilised currently.
or a strategy for a region to engage in an active market creation in the context of some promising emerging technology.
Collaboration and interdisciplinary problemsollvin approaches are fostered as project consortia have to consist of at least four institutes, preferably with diverging technological competences.
The emergence of the communication capacities of social networking technologies is itself providing a challenge to existing systems,
as they allow for foreseeing breakthroughs, technology leaps, trends and discontinuities, new perspectives and opportunity maps present themselves to a corporation through identifying its challenges
technological and innovation‘think tank'created in 2001. It has been qualified as a‘social organization'by the Brazilian Presidency,
and is supervised by the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Its inception was part of government efforts to promote science, technology and innovation (ST&I) develoopmen in Brazil in order to advance economic growth, competitiveness and well-being.
Its scope covers three integrated themes: strategic foresight exercises (future studies; strategic evaluation of large programs and projects;
conflicts may occur between new democratic practices, technological expertise and scientific freedom. On the other hand, as the future is unpredictable,
and are also being questioned by those beyond the strict sphere of science and technology (S&t).
in a knowledge-based society, democratic governance must ensure that citizens are able to make an informed choice from the options made available to them by responsible scientific and technological progress.
2004) have coined the term technology futures analysis (TFA), which comprises technology intelligence, forecasting, roadmapping, technollog assessment, and foresight.
In addition, this methodological approach was based on the perception that decision-making emerges from a negotiaatio between multiple actors.
FINEP is one the main agencies under the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation (MCTI.
considering existing challenges to Brazilian energy matrix in next 20 years Technologies for generation of electric energy, fuel supply and energy transmission and distribution, distributed generaatio and storage, planning
63 technological topics were examined by experts, using Delphi technique and considering four dimensions of analysis:
techno-economic, strategic, environmental and social Identification of an initial list of 63 technological topics Identification of seven priority technological topics, considdere‘robust'Multi-criteria analysis:
identified technological topics were evaluated using hierarchical criteria and analysis of robustness Final report and dissemination of results Water resources Establishment of ST&I priority agenda aimed at guiding future investments made by governmental agencies in six predefined themes Quality
This should include social and cultural aspects associated with GMO commercial use and consumption in agricultural and health sectors Future economic and social impacts of GMO technologies;
technological and commerciia strategies (long term perspective; financing mechanisms; future of plant breeding and plant breeder profile;
and disseminnatio of results Nanotechnology Mapping current situation and future trends in S&t in Brazil and in a number of selected nations,
in order to guide national investments in nanosciences and nanotechnologies Trends in S&t development in a selected group of countries;
trends in private sector investments worldwiide state-of-the-art in nanoscience and nanotechnollog in Brazil (main research groups, lab infrastruccture funding, training activities
aiming at comparing development of nanosciences and nanotechnologies in selected countries Challenges in communicating the outcomes of foresight studies. 251 supporting basic and applied research;
the development of innovative services, products and processes; the incubation of firms and the implementation of a technological infrastruuctur in private and public organizations.
Implicit in its mission is the requirement for management and operatiiona structures and staff to be prepared to implement a variety of financing possibilities,
when precompetitive technological programs reach government decision-making at high levels. Academia: representatives from universities and research institutions tend to impose barriers to accepptin strategic foresight activities.
2011)‘ Strategic foresight applied to the management plan of an innovation development agency',Technology analysis & Strategic management, 24: 267 83.
European commission, Joint research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. 2011)‘ The FOR-LEARN Online foresight Guide, '<http://forlearn. jrc. ec. europa. eu/guide/0 home/index. htm>accessed 12 december 2011.
Sustainable futures, Strategies, and Technologies. Bethesda, MD: World Future Society. Godet, M. 2001) Creating Futures Scenario planning as a Strategic management Tool.
2004)‘ Technology futures analysis: towards integration of the field and new methods',Technological forecasting and Social Change, 71: 287 303.
Vecchiato, R. and Roveda, C. 2010)‘ Foresight in corporate organizations',Technology analysis & Strategic management, 22:99 112.
*and Sylvia Schwaag Serger1 1lund University research Policy Institute, P o box 117, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden, 2institute of Science, Technology and Society, School of Humanities
China, science policy, research, innovation. 1. Introduction and problem definition In recent years, there has been a rapidly growing interest in the development of science, technology and innovation (STI) in the People's republic of china.
So far, scholarly interest has focused on the overall evolution and design of China's science and technology (S&t system (Ke 2004;
Ergas (1987) identifies two principal orientations of countries'technology policy: diffusion-and missionorienttation While Ergas'categorization is useful,
Technology and Education of the State Council, created in 1998, and currently chaired by Prime minister Wen Jiabao.
‘key fields'and‘priority themes'(zhongdian lingyu jiqi youxian zhuti),‘mega-engineering projects'(zhongda zhuanxiang),‘frontier technologies,
So-called mega-engineering and mega-science projects are aimed at‘leapfrogging'in key areas, while key technology programs play the role of supporting economic development,
oriented to priority fields and themes identified in the MLP. In addition to the plans, research policy is structured
1 The most salient programs in recent history are the National Key technologies R&d Program established in 1984,
the State High-tech R&d Program (also known as the 863 Program), initiated in 1986 and the State Basic R&d Program (also known as the 973 Program), established in 1997.
The 863 Program serves the goal of‘leading to the future'by supporting the development of frontier technologies.
on promoting the developmeen of high-tech small and medium-sized enterprises (SMES), on creating or supporting research institutes and labs, on increasing international cooperation etc.
National Key technologies R&d Program, the 863 Program and the 973 Program; and two group programs:
Plan National Key technologies R&d Program 1984 Foster key technologies to upgrade traditional industries and create new ones State Key Laboratory Program 1984 Support selected laboratories in universities,
1986 National High-technology R&d Program (863 Program) 1986 Foster China's overall innovation capacity in high-tech sectors and enhance its international competitiveness Spark Program 1986
Support technology transfer to rural areas and promote development of agriculture based on S&t achievements State Key and New Product Program 1988 Support new high-tech products for key industries 9th Five-year Plan National Program
on Key Basic research Priorities (973 Program) 1997 Support basic research Innovation Fund for Technology-based SMES 1999 Support innovative activity by high-tech SMES Special
Technology development Project for Research institutes 1999 Support central government-related technology development research institutes Action Plan for Thriving Trade by Science and Technology 2000 Facilitate exports of high-tech products
with high value-added and foster international competitiveness 10th Five-Year Plan Agriculture S&t Transfer Fund 2001 Foster development of S&t achievements in agriculture
and diffusiio of agricultural technologies 11th Five-Year Plan Mega-science Program 2006 Promote four top scientific areas Mega-engineering Projects 2006 Promote technology
and engineering projects with highly strategic national goals Date of creation unknown International S&t Cooperation Plan 2001?
Use global S&t resources to develop critical technologies; provide a platform for international cooperation State Engineering Technology research Centers Provide technologies
and equipment to firms Soft Science Research program Provide reliable scientific advice to national and local policy-makers Source:
based on data on national S&t programs provided in the China Statistical Yearbook on Science and Technology (2009).
unfortunately there is a lack of data), the 863 Program and the Key technologies Program, clearly identify specific‘missions
both regarding thematic missions or technologies and the aim to strengthen. The concentration of resources in mission-and excellencefoccuse programs reflects a long-lasting orientation in Chinese research and innovation policy
2009 China Statistical Yearbook on Science and Technology Data from 2008. Note: In order to simplify, some programs have been grouped into one‘bubble'.
'Thus, the‘Innofund+programs'includes Innofund, Spark, Torch, Agricultural S&t Transfer Fund, National Engineering research Centers (data from 2007) and the New National Products Program.
The‘National S&t Infrastructure+Programs'include the National S&t Infrastructure Program, the S&t Basic Work Program, the Special Technology development Project for Research institutions and the NSFC Fund for Less Developed Regions.
The Mega-engineering Projects is missing due to lack of data. Table 3. Allocations for S&t by Central Government in main S&t programs (in million RMB) Item 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
1648 1900 National High-tech R&d Program (863 Program)* 2974 3768 4025 3795 4440 5592 Key technology R&d Program 1053 1338 1345
1614 1624 3000 5441 5066 National science and Technology Infrastructure Program 100 593 573 754 686 24 S&t Basic Work 200 200
200 103 178 150 Special Technology development Project for Research institutions 158 214 193 183 186 200 250 250 Innovation Fund for Small Technology
250 300 300 300 300 National Engineering research Centers 50 50 50 86 60 84 86 State Key Labs 130 130
MOST (2009)( see Note 2) and China Statistical Yearbook on Science and Technology (2009).**Data for 863 Program are from MOST (2009)( see Note 2),
One principal program, the Mega-engineering Projects is missing due to lack of data. However, though we do not know their exact size,
and as such should be located quite close to the 863 Program and the Key technologies Program, further confirming that government S&t funding is concentrated strongly on mission-based research. 3. 2 Mission Traditionally,
The 16 Mega-engineering Projects identified in the last MLP are selected clearly missionorieented to address major economic and societal needs,
Another strongly mission-oriented program is the Key technologies Program. Created in the 10th Five-year Plan,
MOST (see Note 2) and China Statistical Yearbook on Science and Technology (2009). Research priority setting in China. 265 the ideal of planning also shapes and influences programs for excellence.
aiming at promoting the development of high-tech industry and the use of S&t in rural economic development, respectively.
which provides loans to high-tech SMES, is another diffusion measure, as are the Agricultural S&t Transfer Fund and the New National Products Program.
Other programs with institution-and capacity-building features are the S&t Basic Program and the Special Technology development Project for Research institutions.
However, total funding for these programs is compared small with programs such as the 863 Program, the Key technologies Programs,
like‘leapfrogging'technological developmmen and concentrating research resources in a few selected sectors. Perhaps the most important investments in institutionaan capacity-building are made in the field of education.
and Fangyun Chen) to national leaders, calling for the acceleration of China's high-tech development. They stressed the need to meet the challenges of the global technology revolution and competition and pointed to the US Strategic Defense Initiatives as well as Europe's EUREKA Program.
In March 1986 Deng xiaoping personally approved the drafting of a National High-tech R&d Program, the 863 Program.
From April through September of 1986, the State Council mobilized hundreds of experts to draft an Outline for Development Of high Technology
which was issued on 18 november by the CCPCC and the State Council. The creation of the 973 Program, intended to strengthen basic research,
More than two thousand scientists, engineers, policy experts, corporate executives, officials from universities, ministries, and corporations participated in the strategic studies.
'or‘homegrown innovation'and strive to reduce China's dependence on foreign Technology research priority setting in China. 267 (Mei and Luo 2005).
on China's technological upgrading, with MOST expressing skepticism (Mei and Luo 2005). During 2005, officials involved in the drafting sought input from foreign experts
and enabling technological leapfrogging, strengthening linkages between academic environments and industry, supporting high value-added industry,
to enable the restructuring of industry from low-tech to high-tech, allowing China to move up the value chain,
973 Projects) with programs for industrial development (Mega-engineering Projects) and sectoral technology programs on a more modest scale (Key technologies Programs, 863 Projects).
U s. Government Technology policies, 1969 2008. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Braun, D. 2008)‘ Organising the political coordination of knowledge and innovation policies',Science and Public policy, 35: 227 39.
Cantner, U. and Pyke, A. 2000)‘ Classifying technology policy from an evolutionary perspective',Research policy, 30: 759 75.
Cao, C.,Simon, D. and Suttmeier, R. P. 2006)‘ China's 15-year science and technology plan',Physics Today, 59:38 45.
China Statistical Yearbook on Science and Technology. 2009), p. 292. Beijing: China Statistics Press. D'Costa, A. and Parayil, G. 2009) New Asian Dynamics in Science, Technology and Innovation.
China and India in Perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. The Economist. 2009)‘ China's struggling smaller firms.
Ergas, H. 1987)‘ The importance of technology policy'.'In: Dasgupta, P. and Stoneman, P. eds) Economic policy and technological Performance, pp. 51 97.
New york: Cambridge university Press. Feigenbaum, E. A. 2003) China's Techno-Warriors. National Security and Strategic Competition from the Nuclear to the Information age.
Fuller, D. B. 2009)‘ How law, politics and transnational networks affect technology entrepreneurship: Explaining diverrgen venture capital investing strategies in China',Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27: 445 59.
High-tech Research in China. New york: Palgrave Macmillan. Ke, Y. 2004) Science and Technology in China Reform and Development.
Beijing: China Intercontinental Press. Kroll, H.,Conle',M. and Schu ller, M. 2010)‘ China innovattio system and innovation policy'.
Mu, R. and Qu, W. 2008)‘ The development of science and technology in China: A comparison with India and the United states',Technology in Society, 30: 319 29.
OECD. 2003)‘ Priority setting: issues and recent trends',Governance of Public research: Toward Better Practices, pp. 61 76.
Simon, D. and Goldman, M.,(eds),(1989) Science and Technology in Post-Mao China. Cambridge, MA:
Springut, M.,Schlaikjer, S. and Chen, D. 2011)‘ China's Program for Science and Technology Modernization:
Suttmeier, R. P. 1980) Science, Technology and China's Drive for Modernization. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press..(
Science, technology and China's politiica future: a framework for analysis'.In: Simon, D. and Goldman, M. eds) Science and Technology in Post-Mao China.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Contemporary Series. Suttmeier, R. P.,Cao, C. and Simon, D. 2006)‘ Knowledge innovation and the Chinese Academy of Sciences',Science, 312/5770: 58 9. US Embassy Beijing.
1996)‘ China's science and technology policy for the twenty-first century: A view from the top',<http://www. fas. org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/stpol1. htm>accessed 25 may 2011.
Wan, G.,(ed.),2008) The 30 Years of China's Science and Technology Reform and Open-door policy.
Wang, Y.-F. 1993) China's Science and Technology policy: 1949 1989. Aldershot: Avebury. Weinberg, A m. 1963)‘ Criteria for scientific choice',Minerva, 1: 159 71.
2010)‘ Four Famous persons in the Scientific Community Give Suggestions to Deepen the reform of Science and Technology System, 16 august 2010,
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011