| Governance (409) |  |
| Governance arrangements (12) | |
| Governance culture (14) | |
| Governance landscape (4) | |
| Governance of nanotechnology (16) | |
| Multilevel governance (13) | |
| Participatory governance (13) | |
| Reflexive governance (11) | |
| Governance (409) | |
| Governance arrangements (12) | |
| Governance culture (14) | |
| Governance landscape (4) | |
| Governance of nanotechnology (16) | |
| Multilevel governance (13) | |
| Participatory governance (13) | |
| Reflexive governance (11) | |
this means that ERA NETS must operate in the presence of a multitude of governance cultures. These and yet other complexities are amplified by the many administrative options that can be pursued in the implementation of shared research agendas, ranging from the relatively weak coordination of national 3 http://cordis. europa. eu/coordination/era net
and whether a more open, network-type governance culture can be established within local government itself, as well as between local government and other research and innovation actors. 5. 3. Ultimate, long-term impacts Integrating suitable new actors in the community dealing with research and innovation is one of the key long-term impacts expected from foresight exercises.
if this is seen as a first step only towards establishing a more strategic and open governance culture. 6. Conclusions The innovation policy foresight
The paper stresses national governance culture as the most decisive contextual element to be taken into account in the design of policy oriented national FTAS.
and uncertainty-avoidance as the key dimensions of national governance culture and thereby critical for FTA design Rijkens-Klomp and van der Duin take a less interdisciplinary approach,
Countries'or regions'political culture might be closely related to national governance culture. Havas et al. use governance culture to distinguish between the innovation policies in Western European countries, on the one hand,
and Central and Eastern European countries (CEE) and newly independent states (NIS), on the other hand 3. However, Havas et al. do proceed not further into any systematic characterisation of the two traditions.
and national governance culture as decisive contexts for analysing and using foresight in policy-making. The paper argues that this concept provides a more useful approach to the decisive context of foresight than the size or regional affiliation of a country.
and discussed. 2. National traditions and governance culture as context for foresight In this section, we introduce a conceptual framework of national traditions
and governance culture for analysing foresight and priority setting in science, technology and innovation policies. 2. 1. Sociologists'and anthropologists'perception of culture Cultural differences and styles are very hard to quantify,
we have argued that national governance culture is a more decisive context for analysing and using foresight in policy making.
To qualify the concept of national governance culture, we have suggested drawing on the classical work of Geert Hofstede.
Even between culturally neighbouring countries, such as Denmark and Sweden, large differences exist in governance culture, in addition to differences in industrial structure, academic traditions and so on.
However, there is still much to be understood about national governance cultures'effects on foresight, and there is a need for more systematic research on this topic.
< Back - Next >
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011