1. 22/06/2015 1 Social and Political Bodies: Blurred actors in Innovation Systems Salvador Estrada & Marco Jaso International Conference 2008 24 -26 September, Mexico City

2. Outline Introduction Historical background Structural logics Empirical findings  Context  Sectoral influence  Regional influence  National influence Conclusions 2 22/06/2015

3. Introduction Which are their main contributions?  Innovation: collective task and collaboration IS: Complexity  Labour division, organizational ecosystem, information and knowledge flows Identity construction and purpose awareness processes  Supportive system (financial, information, communication)  Failure avoidance (certitude, coordination, attention, services, vision, liability and legitimation, networking and institutionalization) R&D funding & management + governance  gains

4. Paper’s objective Insertion into complex systems Process of Identity construction Purpose awarenessManagement practices Collective governance Benefit for Innovation Systems Political and Social Bodies Lessons upon

5. Constituent Blocks of Innovation Systems Innovative Organisations Governmental Bodies Support system Universities Public Research Centres Diffusion of Information Social & Political Bodies Orient conduct of actors Provide a voice of their interests Facilitate socialisation of public initiatives Others

6. Historical background Scientific academies Common background Basic services Authority demands Co-evolutionary path Gentlemen’s Club State Agency Two models Communication processes Corporate authority Norms and values setting Science and society bindings Lobbying Heritance

7. Structural logics Constituent blocks of IS (Galli and Teubal 1997)  Innovative (R&D performers)  Policy (political and regulatory bodies)  Supportive (bridging, social and cultural bodies) Regional dimension  Regional Development (policy and supportive). (1/2)

8. Structural logics Source of Blurredness: Complexity demands on flexibility (distinctive vs. similar activities) Organizational boundaries and intermediation role (Braun, Guston, Van der Meulen/ Howells, Boon et al., Klerkx and Lewis/ Galli and Teubal/ Hekkert et al.)  Agent-principal theory: Audit and monitoring mechanisms, multiple configurations, aggregation and mediation.  Intermediary functions: information intensive and networking activities  Institutional view: Norms, incentives, coordination, negotiaton  Functionalistic approach: Search guidance, resources mobilization, legitimacy creation. (2/2)

9. Empirical evidence Mexican case  S&T Policy suffered major changes From strategic areas to horizontal policies Tooling up instruments to link capacities with demands Organizational change and new players From top down to bottom up regional policies Productive organizations and research centres associations  Market oriented policy  Inadequate collaboration (1/2)

10. Empirical evidence (2/2) Conflicting arenas  Excellence vs. Relevance  Failure to incentive business expenditures  Budgetary limitations  Usefulness of public research Regional Councils’ coalition  Revision of federal agreement Advisory participatory based organization  Social pressure to audit and participate

11. Sectoral Influence Productive Association (Agriculture)  Claims: To impose research agenda  Set of associations in rural sector  To cosponsor research and provide demand signalling by representing producers’ interests.  Layers of intermediation: associate assembly, Directive Board, member in diverse boards, general audience  Information gathering: Consultation methods, Multi-stake holder process.  Legitimating channel: Producers setting agenda methods.  Audit and monitor activities: Whole cycle of research promotion.  IS gains: Enhance coordination, communication mechanisms, instruments and methodologies. (1/2)

12. Sectoral Influence Research Centres' Association  Claims: To diminish technological dependency  Gentlemen’s club  To improve associates’ knowledge, information and communication, management instruments and training, assistance to government  Layers of intermediation: associate assembly, Directive Board, member in diverse boards, general audience  Information gathering: Consultation methods, Steering Committees.  Legitimating channel: Political appointment and expertise role.  Audit and monitor activities: Third party to prepare and command projects.  IS gains: Enhance coordination, communication mechanisms, instruments and methodologies. (2/2)

13. Regional influence Net of States’ S& T Councils  Claims: Promote regional back up and pool scarce resources, decentralization of funds, reject national influence on agenda  States’ Coalition (States’ alliance)  To empower negotiation with Federal Government  Information gathering: Consultation methods, direct surveys, focus groups, panels, gatekeep in boards  Audit and monitor activities: decentralized funds (projects awarded with concurrent funds)  IS gains: Institutional and legal framework, budget allocation and participatory policy making

14. State Councils Policy making and funding activities GuanajuatoTabascoJalisco Layers: multistakeholder settings Decision making: scientific committee Decision making: Bureaucratic structure Decision making: Directive Council (private interests) Weak representation: Technological centres Weak representation: Professional bodies Weak representation: Scientific academies Policy making and funding activities Layers: multistakeholder settings

15. National influence Consultative Forum  Claims: Governance of S&T National System  Meta-meta agent  To promote S&T and audit policy implementation  Layers of intermediation: Executive and Legislative Power, Federal S&T Directive Board, Economic Development agencies, Directive Board, Researchers  Information gathering: Consultation Fora, Working Groups  Legitimating channel: Consensus Building  Audit and monitor activities: Third Parties to solve disputes  IS gains: Improved communication, mutual understanding among communities, pool of expertise.

16. Summary and discussion Multiple goal boundary associations = intermediaries Conflictive governance and suitable networking Variety creation mechanisms by accomplishing broad mission statements and claims Selection mechanisms by distributive and shared capacity to exchange information (aligned vision) Retention mechanisms by methods of dispute solving.

17. Recap on paper’s objective for Concluding Insertion into complex systems Process of Identity construction Purpose awareness Management practices Collective governance Benefit for Innovation Systems Political and Social Bodies Lessons upon

18. Conclusions Little awareness to use and implement KM practices to add value to information exchange, binding resources and networks and deploy a shared vision. Information gathering methods on a collective basis influence efficiency and alignment Improved mechanisms for audit and monitor resources IS Gains: enhanced and coordinated decision making on funding and managing R&D among several stakeholders settings. S&P bodies play a catalyser role for guiding institutional change. Empirical evidence provides meaningful explanation of intermediation and the following lessons

19. Thank you for listening! Social and Political Bodies: Blurred actors in Innovation Systems Salvador Estrada & Marco Jaso