Enacting Transformative Innovation Policy: A Comparative Study Johan Schot - Director Science Policy Research Unit - SPRU University of Sussex @Johan_Schot

Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium Aim is to explore the future of STI policy, its foundation, formulation and governance, responding to World in Transition. This is recognized by EU, OECD, UN and other international organizations as important new agenda Focus is on how to deliver on transformative STI policy, so on implementation, experimentation, new policy practices, evaluation, training, and mutual learning Images for the websire

Expressions of a World in Transition 2. Grand Challenges 1. Mega Trends World in Transition 3. Transforming Innovation 4. Deep Transitions World is in Transition. Four expressions of World in Transition, four ways of talking about it. First two are fairly general, third one is more specific to SPRU and together with first three has generated A New Agenda for SPRU called Transformation Innovation, which is also main theme of this conference Fourth expression is more related to my own specific research and agenda.

1. Mega Trends Growing Unemployment Megacities Climate Change Multi-polar world Megacities Globalisation Migration Growing Inequality These are a number of mega-trends, you find them in scenario’s and many reports. This list is not comprehensive. Together these trends are leading to a lot of turbulence and sense of urgency that world is in transition and science, technology and innovation policy need to respond Many of them also have caused Brexit, and in writing a Comment on this for Nature, and a blog for the Guardian with Ed we make the point that we are too concerned about the consequences of Brexit, and forget to talk about its causes. This is central to my own work but also much of work of SPRU, and our community at large. Amends - Map behind made darker so can see

2. Grand challenges Urgent challenges can be translated in goals. This has been done forcefully by the UN in their 17 SDGs. Sussex has taken up these challenges through establishment with IDS SSRP. Two remarks…. 1) Goals are embraced by both developing and developed world, it is a joint challenges, and one could argue they erase the distinction between developing and developed, we are all in the need of developing but in a complete new direction. Solutions will also not just come from the West and diffuse to the rest. 2) They also take the focus away from single issue challenges, such as climate change. Focus on a range of issues, including climate change, poverty reduction. For me they represent a new way of thinking about Social Progress. We have lost our ability to talk about social progress, Therefore I am very happy that next to the IPCC we now have the IPSP to combine issues of social and environmental justice, and having SPRU heavily involved.

3. Transforming Innovation Creative Destruction or Destructive Creation?

4. Deep Transition …Moving in a similar direction Transitions in multiple sociotechnical systems… There is a fourth way of talking about the world in transition,, this is my own future research agenda, but one shared with a larger group in SPRU who work on sustainability transition issues, inclusive innovation, pathways to sustainability and other related issues. Deep Transition notion framework itself is co-developed with Laur Kanger. The main idea here is that the world in transition is an expression of what is called a Second Deep Transition. Let me explain this term. Ability of current systems of provision for to respond is limited. We cannot globalize current systems….need for systems innovation….not just product and processes, not just individual systems…but many systems……sustainability transitions field …..focus is on individual systems…here we are talking about many systems changing in a similar connection…..this is Deep Transition……..we had deep transitions in the past How do Deep Transitions comes about..through development of new meta-regime or rule set which guides all systems in a similar direction This meta-regime is similar to techno-economic paradigm, introduced by Carlota. In fact it is derived from it. Deep Transitions: Emergence, Acceleration, Stabilization and Directionality Johan Schot, Laur Kanger 2016. Available at www.johanschot.com

Socio-technical System for Mobility Maintenance and distribution network Industry structure Road infrastructure and traffic system Regulations and policies Markets and user practices Culture and symbolic meaning Vehicle Fuel infrastructure Let me briefly illustrate this with an example of the Picture of system, so innovation is

Representation of a transition of a single system There is a fourth way of talking about the world in transition,, this is my own future research agenda, but one shared with a larger group in SPRU who work on sustainability transition issues, inclusive innovation, pathways to sustainability and other related issues. Deep Transition notion framework itself is co-developed with Laur Kanger. The main idea here is that the world in transition is an expression of what is called a Second Deep Transition. Let me explain this term. Ability of current systems of provision for to respond is limited. We cannot globalize current systems….need for systems innovation….not just product and processes, not just individual systems…but many systems……sustainability transitions field …..focus is on individual systems…here we are talking about many systems changing in a similar connection…..this is Deep Transition……..we had deep transitions in the past How do Deep Transitions comes about..through development of new meta-regime or rule set which guides all systems in a similar direction This meta-regime is similar to techno-economic paradigm, introduced by Carlota. In fact it is derived from it.

Geels, 2002, Geels and Schot, 2007, Schot and Kanger, 2016

First and Second Deep Transitions 5th surge Information & Telecom (1971- ?) We are here First Deep Transition 4th surge Oil and Mass Production (1910-1975) 3rd surge Steel, Electricity & Heavy Engineering (1875-1920) Degree of diffusion of successive and overlapping technological potentials Second Deep Transition? 2nd surge Steam & Railways (1830-1870) 1st surge Industrial (1770-1830) Years 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 Source: Adapted from C. Perez (2002)

Three Frames of Innovation Policy Use this to introduce the frames

R&D & Regulation: Policy Activities R&D stimulation (subsidies, tax credits, procurement, mission oriented programs) Intellectual Property Rights Improve knowledge base Education Policy on Science & Engineering Science for Society Communication Foresight & Technology Assessment

National Systems of Innovation: Policy Activities R&D, IPR, Education Policy, Foresight, Regulation Spaces for interaction on various levels, for example technology platforms Use of demand stimuli, e.g. procurement Building Regional & National System of Innovation Ability to absorb knowledge, e.g. capability building, skills development Programs to stimulate entrepreneurship, incubators Explain more illustrate points Show model and the illustrative points

Transformative Change: Policy Activities Building transition arena’s: supporting diversity & opening up for alternatives, pathways to sustainability Technology forcing, through regulation and/or procurement Building on social innovation, inclusive innovation, frugal innovation, pro-poor innovation Setting up large scale societal experiments & scaling-up (use or creation of intermediaries) Strategic Niche Management Enhancing anticipation, adaptability, reflexivity capabilities Constructive Technology Assessment & Responsible Research & Innovation (participation) Bridge Science/Engineering & Social Sciences & Humanities in Education system New institutions for coordination between various policies, integrating of STI into other policies (energy, housing, agriculture, healthcare, transport, and city policies); seeking policy mixes Use images from the website

Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium Pilot Period: Articulation and co-development of main ideas & Mobilising more actors Step 1 Sep16-February 17: visits, exploration of three frames for each country, workshop in Sweden Step 2 March-Jun 17: Exemplary case-studies of Transformative Innovation Policy, & workshop in Colombia Step 3 January-August 17: Definition of 5 year program, policy experimentation, research, competence building and communication, evaluation for transformative change & stakeholder engagement Step 4 January-December 2017: Building up Consortium, finding more partners; develop research network Step 5 Sep 19-21: Consortium conference in South Africa, with founding and (potential) new members Step 6 Jan 2018: Long-term programme established with current & new cohort of global partners Make a timeline to make it more interersting

Conclusion 1 – 3 frames can be recognized 1. Elements of all three frames are present in each country, yet in a very different way. Norway: move to knowledge economy & making science more responsible to societal demands Sweden: restructuring industrial base using green as business opportunity Colombia: peace process & regional divisions South-Africa: overcoming apartheid, exclusion & unemployment of black people Finland: overcoming economic crises, finding new opportunities

Conclusion 2 – Frame 3 is marginal Frame 3 is mainly aspirational, misses strong narrative; Frame 1 and 2 are quite strong, embedded in institutional structures and in regulations. Yet at the same time there is sense of urgency, sense that frame 1 & 2 are not delivering, STI is under pressure to deliver not only economic development but also contribute to societal and environmental goals Question about relationships between frames is not addressed. Need expressed for more experimental approaches

Conclusion 3 - how to do Transformative Innovation Policy is unclear Gap between narrative and implementation of transformative innovation policy. The following instruments are used: Responsible Research and Innovation (Norway) Procurement (South-Africa and Finland) Challenge- led/Strategic R&D programs (Sweden, Finland) Demand articulation with public involvement (Norway, Finland, Colombia) Social innovation, grassroots innovation (Colombia & South Africa) Technology Forcing regulation (Finland)

Conclusion 4 - need for theory of change Underlying theory of change/transformative is missing. Transition perspective could fill this gap with focus on experimentation, niche development, regime destabilisation, and policy mixes This is recognized in Finland and Sweden, including first try-outs of mapping instrument onto transition dynamics (MLP dynamics)

Conclusion 5 - notion of transformation is unclear What is called transformative is different in each context; transformation of research system, industry structure, resource economy, exclusion patterns, integrating informal economy in innovation system, but not sociotechnical system change. How to move from identifying challenges to transformative change? How to move from individual policy programs, experiments to a broader change process? How to anchor learning & change including capacity building is not addressed

Conclusion 6 - moving from funder to change agent is difficult Founding members are research funders. They struggle to combine role of funder and strategic change actor. In the latter role they become mobilisers & facilitators and enter the areas of other ministries and actors, this adds complexity, leads to questions about their mandate, and their capacity to do the job. In a deeper sense the institutional context is missing, there is a lot of fragmentation in the research system & lack of coordination. How to overcome this is unclear. Open Question is whether an experimental approach might help.

Conclusion 7 - research evaluation for transformative change is lacking Research evaluations are input and output oriented, focus on audit element; process oriented evaluation focusing on transformative change and providing input in the process itself (formative evaluation ) is totally lacking

Pushing the frontiers of knowledge Training the next generation Thank you. Papers and more details on the Consortium: www.transformative-innovation-policy.net See also www.sussex.ac.uk/spru Teaching and research closely intertwined Broad international and interdisciplinary scope Combination of practical and theoretical elements Capacity building in range of countries Five Master programs and PhD program Research addresses real world problems Co-producing knowledge with stakeholders Sustained engagement and long term partners Impact through concepts, tools, capacity building, providing a knowledge base Research impact Training the next generation We have two types of interventions in this trip: to introduce the consortium including 3 frames The consortium meeting to discuss methodology and choose case studies