Synopsis:
Policy:
ART1.pdf
and the focus on policy formulation was tight. One problem, which was highlighted, was the tendency to compensate for difficulty in handling combined techniques by narrowing the scope of the study
and knowledge sharing elements of studies which added to the value of the policy formulation outcomes. In addition to a complex combination of techniques
voluntary negotiated agreements in major policy areas giving rise to foresight and a revisit to roadmapping and TA and the role and management of experts.
ART10.pdf
Navigating the complex landscape of policy strategies E. Anders Eriksson A k. Matthias Weber b a FOI Defence Analysis, SE-16490 Stockholm, Sweden b ARC systems
Policy strategy Available online at www. sciencedirect. com Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 462 482 Corresponding author.
and modification of actual policy strategies because the perception and the expectations of actors with respect to future developments have changed as a result of the process.
or from a public policy perspective, is confronted with the need to navigate increasingly complex decision landscapes.
The foresight tradition that has become quite prominent particularly in public policy takes into account the interactive character of innovation
Based on this realisation, any approach to policy or business strategy based on the idea of early identification of winners must be subject to serious doubts.
whether this kind of argument is applied to company strategies or to national policies: it implies a need to accept a quite limited power to control the future.
forward-looking approaches under the headline of‘foresight'have acquired a prominent role as policy support tools. Foresight has become particularly important in science and technology policy 3, 4,
but also in relation to sustainability and other long-term, uncertainty-ridden policy issues. There are several types of foresight approaches and methodologies,
and combined it with the idea of being able to secure through national policy a leading edge in selected technologies 10.
because priority-setting in RTD policy was directly 3 We here have in mind the UK foresight tradition as begun by Martin and Irvine 7. Today, of course,
Especially in policy circles, a more direct and sometimes even operational benefit is asked from foresight than serving as a shaper of mindsets
and as a means to develop a reservoir of policy options. From the perspective of policy-making, this is quite understandable
and policy-makers in particular, actually protect themselves against the fallacies of false promises and over-optimistic expectations expressed
Still we have found it quite practical in RTI policy to distinguish between robust and adaptive technology options
The matter is complicated further by the fact that policy options can have an impact at different levels.
Moreover, the impact and effectiveness of policies depend on their time of implementation. 2. 2. 3. Portfolios of options We have used so far the term package to catch the need to combine a number of elementary options to achieve a robust,
new energy technologies through early policy commitment 27. Adaptive planning does not mean to keep all options open as long as possible.
but it is made based on experiences by the authors over the past ten years in a number of European and national foresight and policy strategy processes.
experiences were made with Strategic Niche Management19 and Transition Management20 as approaches to devise forward-looking policy strategies for long-term transformations of infrastructure and sectoral innovation systems towards sustainability.
and stressed the interdependenciie with other policy areas and other innovation actors. Finally and most recently, several projects have been conducted in the Austrian context, dealing with strategy development for research,
Especially from the perspective of small countries the adaptive element is crucial for devising policy strategies.
This realist perspective on policy support is more an insight emerging from practical experience as will be outlined in
Especially when it comes to defining policy strategies, where the fundamental orientations and guidelines for policy need to be discussed as a basis for triggering
and framing more specific initiatives, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to involve a broader audience.
we argue that it is necessary to set up policy-preparing exercises that are of a rather closed nature as a complementary element to public and participatory foresight exercises.
Although current foresight practices recognise the importance of client and policy orientation, the explicit inclusion of closed settings as part of foresight methodology is still uncommon among foresight practitioners,
and not widely accepted among policy-makers, either. In early phases of opinion-building, open consultation and participation are necessary to exchange information,
Although these dividing lines are seldom unambiguous in the type of policy development situations AF has so far been used for
This is useful in order to clarify shared (or diverging) policy and/or societal goals, ambitions and underlying values of the actors and stakeholders involved.
which alternative policies are to be assessed against the exploratory scenarios. It is important to consider this in Phase 3,
this stagewise backcasting of the scenario pathways allows also discussing the appropriate timing of policy and other measures,
for instance in terms of‘windows of opportunity'for introducing a new technology or starting a policy initiative. By developing consistent pathways, the backcasting exercise represents a second level of testing the credibility of a scenario.
and policies that have been realised. The options delivered by the scenarios have also been assessed with respect to our focal issue.
and corresponding policies that promise to be either robust or adaptive (or both). In other words, robust options are fairly easy to identify
These kinds of insights should then serve as an input for today's policy-makers to prioritise, for instance, emerging technologies and design corresponding policies.
In order to come up with new and fresh ideas for policy options comparative analysis of other countries'practices can be instructive. 3. 2. 9. Phase 8:
realisation and coordination Developing policy options and portfolios, and even policy strategies is just an input to actual policy design and implementation.
In other words, so far we have been mainly discussing the early phases of the 477 E. A. Eriksson, K. M. Weber/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 462 482 policy process.
The actual design and implementation of specific policies, and the learning processes that take place in the course of the policy cycle from design to implementation represent the wider context to
which Adaptive foresight processes are supposed to contribute. If the principles behind AF are to be effective
they thus need to be tied closely not only to policy design, but also to policy implementation and learning, at strategic as well as at operational level.
More specifically, the experiences made in the course of hands-on implementation need to be monitored
and fed back to strategy development. In other words, AF should be interpreted as part of a broader continuous learning process that comprises the implementation and evaluation of specific policy measures as well as a monitoring of relevant developments in policy at large.
Strategy development, policy design, implementation and learning should thus not be understood as distinctly separate phases but rather as a continuous process of mutual adjustment.
This adjustment refers to goals and objectives to the identification of new socio-technical options, to the growing knowledge and understanding of their impacts, to the design of new types of policy options and to their integration into portfolios.
One of the main difficulties of this kind of strategic approach to policy-making consists of the fact that all actors involved are autonomous
This is why issues of policy coordination both between different policy areas and between public and private actors have started to play such an important role in policymakkingwithin such a comprehensive setting,
the impact of guiding policy strategies should not be underestiimate because in particular public policy strategies fulfill an orienting function for many private actors as well,
and in the best case play an implicit coordinating function for their decision-making. In practice, processes of scenario developments and portfolio analysis will hardly be conducted on a continuous basis
it makes forward-looking policy strategies more realistic by acknowledging the limitations to actively shaping the future,
it supports strategic thinking about portfolios of options across different scenarios and during different phases of the policy cycle.
Ind. 341 (2001) 107 118.4 A. Tübke, K. Ducatel, J. P. Gavigan, P. Moncada-Paternò-Castello, Strategic policy intelligence:
Strategic policy Intelligence: Current Trends, the State of Play and Perspectives, Research report, IPTS/ESTO, Sevilla, 2002.6 M. Keenan, D. Abbott, F. Scapolo, M. Zappacosta, Mapping foresight
Bridges Between Science, Society and Policy Technology assessment Methods and Impacts, Springer, Berlin, 2004.9 S. Joss, S. Belluci (Eds.
-Project FANTASIE, Stockholm, FOA, 1999.32 H. Van Zuylen, K. M. Weber, J. Shires, A. Eriksson, Options to support the introduction of new technologies and their implications on transport policy
Theory, Evidence and Policy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2004.41 W. Polt, K. M. Weber, Forschung, Technologie und Innovation für Wohlstand in gesellschaftlicher Verantwortung.
IST success scenario and policy priorities, FISTERA Research report, PREST, Manchester, 2005.50 R. J. Lempert, S w. Popper, S. C. Bankes, Shaping The next
ART11.pdf
this transformation represents a shift from optimization-oriented innovation policies for the mitigation of market failures towards coordination-oriented policies (3,
14) where policy-makers interact with RTD stakeholders in learning processes and build new coalitions and institutions based on the use of distributed strategic intelligence 15.
References 1 A. Webster, Technologies in transition, policies in transition: foresight in the risk society, Technovation 19 (6 7)( 1999) 413 421.2 T. Jewell, International foresight's contribution to globalisation, Foresight The Journal of Futures studies, Strategic thinking and Policy
5 (2)( 2003) 46 53.3 T. Könnölä, A. Salo, V. Brummer, Foresight for European coordination:
Policy 29 (4 5)( 2000) 657 678.6 J. P. Salmenkaita, A. Salo, Rationales for government intervention in the commercialization of new technologies, Technol.
Policy Manag. 2 (2)( 2002) 167 193.8 Woodwisdom-Net, Woodwisdom-Net website, visited 31.1.2007, http://www. woodwisdom. net/.
Res. 181 (3)( 2007) 1488 1505.11 R. Barré, Synthesis of technology foresight, in strategic policy intelligence: current trends, the state of play and perspectives, in:
Policy 1 (1)( 2004) 4 32.16 A. Salo, J. Liesiö, A case study in participatory priority-setting for a Scandinavian research program, Int. J. Info.
Policy 1 (1)( 2004) 70 88.18 J.,Liesiö, P.,Mild, A.,Salo, Robust Portfolio Modeling with incomplete cost information and project interdependencies, Eur.
ART12.pdf
Delphi survey 1. Introduction 1. 1. Background In the last few years, the issue of regulatory impact assessment (RIA) has become very attractive, in particular among European policy-makers.
10.1016/j. techfore. 2008.02.004 public activities in research and development, regulatory impact assessment is a policy evaluation mechanism
policy-makers involved in regulatory policies are being held more accountable for the significant economic resources, as well as the political capital invested in regulatory management systems now established in most OECD countries.
Second, there is a growing interest in exploring how regulatory policies can be based more evidence and supported by empirical findings.
More evidence-based approaches to the assessment of regulatory quality allow a review of the effectiveness of policy tools used in practice
but also an improvement of the design and implementation of future policies. So far, we observed a strong focus on ex ante impact assessments,
and are meanwhile also obligatory in the European union 5 and some other industrialised countries prior to the final release of new policy measures,
which is part of the progressive development of regulatory policies, complementing ex ante evaluations 4. Ex post impact assessments are able to evaluate the efficacy
we have to mention another phenomenon which links standardisation and regulatory policies more strongly at the European level.
For over twenty years, the so-called New approach has been the most prominent and successful approach to link standardisation and regulatory policy.
which was identified as a necessary instrument for policy-makers, especially regulatory bodies, also in order to foster the development of new markets by Blind et al. 8. Besides the tradition in regulatory impact assessment,
identify a choice of technological opportunities, set policy, e g. regulatory, priorities and assess potential impacts and chances, discuss desirable and undesirable futures,
prospect the potential impacts of current research, technology and regulatory policy, focus selectively on economic, technological, social and ecological areas as well as to start monitoring and detailed research in these fields.
or cover also regulation as a policy instrument, but the main purpose is the reshaping of existing public research and development programmes or launching completely new programmes.
and policy-makers responsible for regulatory regimes but not for science and technology policy in the narrower sense to identify future requirements for regulations
but also completely new approaches to identify ex ante major future challenges for regulatory policies. The overview of methodologies in Section 2 starts with a list of possible methodologies which are also relevant for assessing the impact of public R&d policies.
we start with an evaluation matrix (Table 1) presenting methodologies to assess the impacts of different policy instruments.
Here, legal frameworks as an object of assessment are part among the set of other policy instruments, like R&d funding,
matching policy instruments and methodologies Innovation surveys Econometric models Control group approaches Cost benefit analysis Expert panels/peer review Field/case studies Network analysis Foresight/Technology assessment
Most efficient are assessed the requirement to use plain language when drafting regulations, the harmonisation and coordinnatio of the regulatory policies of different regulation bodies, the instalment of One-Stop Shops responsible for all regulation
i e. helping to identify needs for regulatory policy intervention. 3. 3. Delphi studies 3. 3. 1. Introduction
In the following Sixth Japanese and Second German Delphi studies 45,46, all obstacle categories were changed into policy measures
The relatively small importance of the regulatory framework for the future development of new issues in science and technology compared to other policy instruments is confirmed in the follow-up studies,
but also as one possible policy measure. However, the role of regulatory frameworks for the realisation of progress in future sciences and technologies compared to other types of obstacles is limited rather.
already published in 2001, with regard to their expected time of realisation, their importance, the effectiveness of policy measures, like R&d support,
which are characterised by a high relevance of regulations as obstacles or as required policy measure. Based on this information
the assessment of R&d support and standardisation as a more diffusion oriented policy instrument correlate very high,
since often the regulatory option ranges between massive interventions in the market and doing nothing in a liberal laissez-faire policy style.
Ex Post evaluation of Regulatory policies Proceedings from the OECD Expert Meeting September 2003, OECD (ed.),Paris:
19 G. Fahrenkrog, W. Polt, J. Rojo, A. Tübke, K. Zinöcker, RTD Evaluation Toolbox Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact of RTD-Policies, Seville:
Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology research, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (The netherlands), 2004.21 K. Blind, The Economics of Standards Theory, Evidence, Policy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
, Research policy, vol. 31 (7), 2002, pp. 1141 1161.27 K. Koch, M. Rafiquzzaman, S. Rao, The Impact of Regulatory policies on Innovation:
ART13.pdf
Tilo Propp b a Department of Science, Technology, Health and Policy Studies, University of Twente, Enschede, The netherlands b Department of Innovation and Environmental sciences, University of Utrecht, Utrecht
Policy 14 (1985) 3 22.2 A. Rip, Introduction of New technology: Making Use of Recent insights from Sociology and Economics of Technology, Technol.
Developing an Integrated Policy Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment, Ashgate, Aldershot, 2005, pp. 45 66.24 S. K. Kassicieh, S. T. Walsh
Policy, 11 (3)( 1982) 147 162.35 R. R. Nelson, S g. Winter, In search of useful theory of innovation, Res.
Policy 6 (1)( 1977). 36 H. Van den Belt, A. Rip, The Nelson Winter Dosi model and synthetic dye chemistry, in:
Shaping technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces and Tools, Edward Elgar, 2002, pp. 355 381.65 B. Elzen, P. S. Hofman, F. W. Geels, Sociotechnical scenarios (STSC) A new
. Green, Sociotechnical scenarios as a tool for transition policy: an example from the traffic and transport domain, in:
Policy (36)( 2007) 871 879.537 D. K. R. Robinson, T. Propp/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 517 538 68 D
ART14.pdf
and levels of implementattion aswell as facilitating the benchmarking and coordination of policies for socioeconomic development.
and in industry and influenced the shape and course of government policy. Moreover, the strength of a foresight culture and capability was increased further
if foresight is to affect policy. The Swedish foresight initiative also demonstrated that the timing of an initiative has a critical influence on its ability to affect policy.
The evaluation also highlighted the fact that broader environmental factors can influence the success of a foresight exercise.
and the existence of a certain degree of fragmentation in the Swedish policy system (a negative factor.
On the other hand, other stakeholders suggested that the greater involvement of ministries would also have undermined legitimacy by turning the exercise into an outlet for government policy and opinion.
), Strategic policy Intelligence: Current Trends, the State of Play and Perspectives, 2001, IPTS-ESTO Report EUR20137EN. 4 N. Brown, B. Rappert, et al.
Public policy in Knowledge-based Economies. Foundations and Frameworks, Edward Elgar, 2003.12 H. Nowotny, P. Scott, M. Gibbons, Rethinking Science.
An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 16 (4)( 2003) 503 526.21 G. F. Thompson, Between Hierarchies and Markets:
She has 10-year experience in policy development and analysis in the field of research and innovation.
Research interests include the areas of research evaluation and impact assessment, foresight, national innovation systems and policies, scientific advice for policy-making and risk governance.
ART15.pdf
First, alternative futures are developed for the EU by considering (i) the overall rationale of EU policies;
as well as distinct viewpoints are indispensable for building policy-relevant visions. The proposed three-level structure of futures or‘cascading'visions offers several advantages for policy-makers at various Available online at www. sciencedirect. com Technological forecasting & Social Change 75
(2008) 558 582 E-mail address: havasatt@econ. core. hu. 0040-1625/$-see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:
and economy in the 12th to 15th century in Europe as this major institutional innovation is described by P. A. David, masked in the language of our contemporary discussions of university research and training policies 1,
policy-makers, analysts, and universities themselves (see, e g. 2 8). The reasons for that are manifold
'2 Yet, a number of important and potentially influential proposals or policy documents do not discuss the future at all 2, 6,
while the legal competences to set policies are with the national or (sub-national) regional governments.
The European commission has launched several initiatives to align these regional and national policies so as to join forces when facing these challenges
the role of university staff, students and the civil society at large, policy-makers or businesses might differ significantly in distinct‘futures'for the EU. Hence,
as the broadest socioeconomic context for universities, with its own science, technology and innovation (STI) policy tools,
and to some extent influencing the rationales of regional and national STI policies, all affecting the activities of universities.
can also influence national and regional HE policies. Also indirectly and less manifestly the various EC funded projects and expert groups on higher education can also shape these policies. 5 ERIA is understood throughout this paper as the set of all relevant actors of RTDI processes in the EU
as well as their interactions. In other words,‘ERIA-policies'of the EU are just one element of ERIA,
as it is composed of all other EU, national and regional policies affecting RTDI processes and performance, the activities of firms, various types of R&d units and institutes, higher education organisations, financial intermediaries,
as well as a host of supporting, bridging and service organisations, and most importantly the systemic features, i e. the interactions (competition, communication, networking, co-operation, etc.)
the shared visions and policy recommendations, stemming from the dialogue among participants, offer a basis for faster and more efficient implementation.
At the first level the overall rationale of EU policies, and its standing vis-à-vis the Triad regions are considered as major‘variables'of the alternative futures for the EU. At the second,
Finally, methodological and policy conclusions are drawn. A few remarks are in order to indicate the limitations of this paper.
and seek feedback from this wider community when finalising their reports, policy recommendations, etc. 8 Several ERA visions have been devised by putting governance issues into the centre,
and policy-makers (among many other fields, for STI policies); 12 conducting various types of research. 13 Academies emerged in some countries as early as the end of the 16th century 1, pp. 5 6,
and the UK the regional authorities have competences to devise policies on higher education, as well as to fund higher education organisations. 14 11 The role of inventors is not to be discussed here,
For a proper policy dialogue it is crucial to use appropriate terms, but it would go beyond the scope of this paper to discuss these competing terminologies in detail.
plus experimental development is not providing any meaningful guidance for devising policies, and can be even seriously misleading.
when formulating policy recommendations or actual policy decisions. Yet, it is simply not possible to reflect on this diversity in a single paper.
the role of these latter types of research organisations should not be ignored in policy discussions. 19 In sum,
consultancy for NGOS and policy-makers at national/regional/local levels is changing. Second, new roles are emerging,
Regional, national or supranational policies can toughen some of the above driving forces, slow down or divert their impacts,
A prime example of a potential major impact of public policies is the current initiative in several countries to‘strongly encourage'universities to patent their research results,
societal and economic factors coupled with various policies and regulations may give rise to a number of future trends, some
NGOS and patient groups as research players. 24 These policy initiatives are criticised heavily by researchers on various grounds.
national and regional policy-makers, businesses, societal groups, students, academic staff, etc. as well as management models (collegial vs. professional,
The second refers to lists of priorities and proposed actions (for different stakeholders, in this case e g. university rectors and deans, regional, national and EU policy-makers, businesses and local communities as partners of universities), inputs
and policy variables arising from the broader systems, in which universities are embedded in. As already argued, this paper takes the latter approach,
p. 1. In brief, visions should highlight the role of policy in realising the desired and feasible future. 25 Note that the national
569 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 Futures developed in genuine foresight processes can be direct (or positive) inputs for policy preparation or strategy building processes:
First, as already stated, policies can modify e g. speed up, slow down or‘redirect'the existing driving forces for change,
'as these policy fields are competing for the same set of scarce political, intellectual, organisational and financial resources);
as well as to the wide range of policies required to promote innovation. Fourth, cohesion is an issue for (a large,
Thus, it is a major political and policy issue and not only because of the recent enlargements, as it has been issue for a non-negligible part of the EU15,
Sixth, a pronounced policy emphasis on cohesion does and should not preclude competition among universities. 4. 1. Futures for the EU
This problem obviously cannot be solved here. 28 In launching the discussion on the priorities for the new generation of cohesion policy programmes,
in July 2005 the European commission published a draft document on Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs:
but pursuing these cohesion/welfare policies in a more flexible way, and using more appropriate, refined policy tools a leads to an‘externally'successful and cohesive EU. B b) Successful multi-speed EU:
A number of the already successful EUREGIONS are promoted heavily by EUPOLICIES (funds) as‘engines of growth',making themeven stronger, leading to enhanced competitiveness of the EU vis-à-vis the Triad regions.
policies meant to support the latter are not modernised, and thus take up too many resources, and hamper the processes required for an enhanced competitiveness.
e g. internal (inappropriate policies and/or poor implementation), external (improving EU performance, but an even quicker development of the other Triad regions).
Inappropriate strategies, insufficient co-ordination of various policies, poor implementation and/or external factors lead to an overall failure both in terms of cohesion and performance vis-à-vis
Finland and Sweden points to the possibility of a‘reformed European socioeconomic model'46,47. b This vision requires an efficient co-ordination of a number of policies,
horizontally, i e. across policy fields, vertically, i e. across governance levels; and along the time dimension, too,
i e. short-,medium-and long-term policies also need to be harmonised 48. The vision itself,
i) a conscious strategic choice to use available funds and other policy tools (e g. regulation) exclusively or excessively for boosting competitiveness,
ii) incapability to devise strategies and policies, and/or general inaction, inertia, inefficiency to implement policies.
In a radical scenario, not to be discussed here, the loss of most/all EU policy-making power to national, regional,
Successful multi-speed EU ERIA EU Double success Successful multi-speed EU Rationale for EU RTDI policies Double-track:
and enhance competitiveness Excessive emphasis on enhancing competitiveness Co-ordination of policies Intense and successful policy co-ordination among regions,
consciously supported by harmonised national and EU policies, with a specific aim to enhance competitiveness and advance cohesion‘Multi-speed'policy co-ordination:
intense and successful among advanced regions, supported by national and EU policies; ad hoc and weak co-ordination among laggard regions, between laggard and advanced regions, at best with halfhearted, reluctant EU efforts Location of major HE/R centres Widely distributed across the EU,
weaker centres are strengthened, and new ones are set up in laggard regions with a specific objective to promote cohesion Concentrated in already strong,
and competitiveness) and fostering cohesion Policy schemes aim at further strengthening strong regions via mobility grants Two-way traffic with strong Triad countries/regions Integration of RTDI
policies aimed at promoting the integration of RTDI activities have an explicit aim of fostering cohesion, too,
supported by policies; laggards are left out for not having sufficient financial and intellectual resources,
however, not Table 2 (continued) ERIA EU Double success Successful multi-speed EU Innovation systems, co-operation among key players a Intense communication among businesses, academia, policy-makers,
and policy-makers to set RTDI priorities relevant for enhancing competitiveness; strong academia industry co-operation, mutually beneficial, intense links among large firms and SMES both inside and across flourishing regions Coordinated, joint efforts supported by EU funds
weak RTDI policy constituencies Insufficient, halfhearted EU-supported efforts at best to strengthen weaker innovation systems of laggard regions/countries RTDI services (information, consultancy, incubation, etc.
policies Mainly in the successful EU regions, sharing experience among themselves and with their partners in Triad regions, geared towards specific needs, supported by an appropriate, coordinated mix of regional, national and EU policies Financial infrastructure Conscious EU efforts (policies,
guidelines, networking, exchange of experience) to improve financial infrastructure across the EU No conscious EU efforts to improve financial infrastructure in the laggard regions Policy-preparation methods,
practices Conscious EU efforts (guidelines, networking, exchange of experience) to improve policymakkin practices across the EU No conscious EU efforts (guidelines,
and the ERIA, on the other, does not deny the possibility that‘ERIA policies'of the EU can enjoy some level of independence from the overall strategy of the EU. Yet,
ERIA policies take the lead into the‘right'direction, and pull other policies, too; and when it is‘destructive'by hampering development
and/or leading to waste of public resources. 573 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 all five of them are equally relevant from a policy strategy) point of view.
Moreover, devising 10 15 visions for the ERIA (2 3 ERIA visions times 5 EU visions) would introduce an unmanageable complexity into this exercise.
What sorts of policies are needed to bring about that type of ERIA (EU vs. national policies; STI and other policies, co-ordination of these polices?
What resources are needed to finance that type of ERIA? In other words, how to set in motion a virtuous circle of‘external'success (competitiveness) of the EU and RTDI efforts?
The former policy approach is based on the consideration that Structural Funds used for promoting improved innovation capabilities can lead to faster, more efficient cohesion processes,
'students, the wider research community, businesses, policy-makers and the civil society. They possess excellent‘navigation'skills to find their way in this complex world, often characterised by conflicting requirements of the various stakeholders.
regional, national or EU (ERIA) policies, a much more refined set of ideal types should be developed, based on a thorough understanding of the main features of existing and hypothetical future universities.
policies aimed at promoting the integration of RTDI activities have an explicit aim of fostering cohesion,
and supported by EU policies; laggards are left out Some EU universities actively participate in cross-border RTDI activities,
For sensible future-oriented public policies and sound university strategies a better understanding of the current situation is needed,
The Humboldtian model of universities higher education and basic research as almost inseparable‘Siamese twins'is still a prevailing notion in many professors'and policy-makers'mindsets.
or a starting point for actual policy preparation or strategy building exercises by considering different future states first for the EU and the European research and Innovation Area,
as well as for decision-makers in general, a main advantage can be that major strategic decisions in our case on the overall rationale of the EU policies
'What is striking in this respect is the sheer lack of alternative visions in the 2007 Green Paper on The European research area 3. A major benefit for policy-makers (at the EU,
by changing the various‘parameters',e g. the overall rationale of the EU or national policies (i e.‘
or the actual STI policy tools, as well as the links between STI policies, per se, and other policies affecting RTDI processes (that is,
considering the rows in the ERIA visions, e g. exploring the impacts of given polices on the mobility of researchers and students inside the EU or globally.
As stressed in the paper, a number of drivers are global (or EUWIIDE in their character,
and used as‘input data'for this qualitative simulation for a specific policy design task. EU policy-makers might also use this structured way of futures-building as one of the tools assisting their initiatives to align national policies;
in that case, however, another level needs to be introduced, namely the national one. For the stakeholders of universities their leaders, staff, students, businesses, the relevant community around them, be it local,
In other words, implementation of various policy proposals and strategies can be given more effective the commitment of the participants.
Impact of fta Approaches on Policy and Decision-making, Seville, 28 29,september 2006 available at: http://forera. jrc. es/documents/papers/anchor/Higheredanchorpaper. pdf. 10 G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, L
Public policy 28 (4)( 2001) 247 258.18 EUROPOLIS, The European research area: a New Frontier for Europe? la lettre OST, No. 22,2001. 19 L. Georghiou, Evolving frameworks for European collaboration in research and technology, Res.
Policy 30 (6)( 2001) 891 903.20 S. Kuhlmann, Future governance of innovation policy in Europe three scenarios, Res.
Policy 30 (6)( 2001) 953 976.21 A. Havas, Futures for Universities, paper presented at the Second International Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis:
Impact of fta Approaches on Policy and Decision-making, Seville, 28 29 september 2006, available at: http://forera. jrc. es/documents/papers/Futures%20of%20universities paper. pdf. 22 Richard R. Nelson, The market economy,
Policy 33 (3)( 2004) 455 471.23 EC, Frontier Research: The European Challenge, HLEG report, DG Research, Office for Official Publications of the European communities, Luxembourg, 2005.24 OECD, Frascati Manual:
Policy 29 (2)( 2000) 109 123.30 M. Gibbons, C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, M. Trow, The New Production
Policy 20 (2)( 1991) 109 119.34 K. Pavitt, The social shaping of the national science base, Res.
Policy 27 (8)( 1998) 793 805.35 A j. Salter, B. R. Martin, The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research:
Policy 30 (3)( 2001) 509 532.36 B. Kehm, Governance and Strategy, Presentation at a Workshop on Driving forces and Challenges for the European University, Brussels, March 23 24 2006.37
Policy 35 (10)( 2006) 1450 1464.43 EC, Key Figures 2005, Towards a European research area, Office for Official Publications of the European communities, Luxembourg, 2005.44 EC Cohesion Policy
Policy 27 (6)( 1998) 569 588.46 K. Aiginger, Copying the US or developing a New European Model policy strategies of successful European countries in the nineties, paper presented at the UN
He has participated in a number of international research projects on STI policies, innovation and transition, as well as on foresight and prospective analyses, been a member of several EU expert groups on foresight,
< Back - Next >
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011
