News from the IPL
INTRODUCTION
This newsletter is published by The Innovation Policy Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, and sponsored by the Ministry of Research and Innovation. The views and ideas expressed in this newsletter do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Ontario Government.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Innovation Impacts: Measurement and Assessment, represents the work of a 13-member panel of experts, chaired by Esko Aho, Senior Fellow, Harvard University; Consultative Partner, Nokia Corporation; and former Prime Minister of Finland. It catalogues the portfolio of Ontario innovation investments, presents an extensive academic and public policy literature review of leading-edge measurement methodologies, and explores the best international practices in impact assessment. The Panel developed a new conceptual framework that is helpful for understanding innovation impact measurement and assessment at the program level and within the innovation ecosystem respectively. Ultimately, the report’s insights will be a valuable tool to support decision-makers in formulating polices and deciding how to best support innovation in the future.
Six of the world’s leading research and education networks today announced their intent to build the world’s first 100 gigabits-per-second (Gbps) intercontinental transmission links for research and education. Leaders from Internet2 (USA), NORDUnet, (Nordic countries), ESnet (U.S. Department of Energy), SURFnet (Netherlands), CANARIE (Canada), and GÉANT (Europe) made the announcement at the 2013 Internet2 Annual Meeting before 800 technology, education and research leaders. These pioneers will create a public-private partnership with the commercial sector, such as equipment vendors and carriers active in the North Atlantic, to advance global networks for research and education. National research and education networks (NRENs) and their constituencies from around the world are invited to participate in the project, titled the “Advanced North Atlantic 100G Pilot” or ANA-100G. The goal is to stimulate the market for 100 Gbps intercontinental networking and advancing global networks and applications to benefit research and education.
Editor's Pick
25 Recommendations for the 2013 America COMPETES Act Reauthorization
Stephen Ezell and Robert D. Atkinson, ITIF
The America COMPETES Act, originally enacted in 2007 and reauthorized in 2010, has helped support the science, technology, and innovation enterprise that underpins U.S. economic growth. The impending 2013 Reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act affords an opportunity to introduce new or extend effective existing programs and initiatives related to: innovation and technology commercialization; federal institutional reforms to spur innovation; and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Revamping the U.S. innovation infrastructure and spurring additional investment in science and technology can help create the new products, processes, and industries that will drive economic development, job growth, and enhanced quality of life for American citizens. A robust reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act in 2013 can play an important role in bolstering the STEM education, scientific research, technology commercialization, and innovation activities that underpin U.S. economic competitiveness and growth. The ITIF has compiled a list of 25 recommendations to consider throughout the reauthorization process that will strengthen the act.
Innovation Policy
European Commission Strategic Report 2013
European Commission
The Strategic Report on the implementation of 2007-2013 Cohesion Policy programs pulls together available information from Member States, up to end-2011 in most cases. With 4 more years to go until the programs finish in 2015, investments under the European Regional Development Fund, Cohesion Fund and European Social Fund have already led to progress and improvement for many citizens. The “Strategic Report” outlines the progress of each country on delivering EU objectives, in line with the targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy. It encourages Member States to measure progress in key strategic sectors, such as research and innovation, rail, energy, capacity building, sustainable urban transport, job creation and training. The reports submitted by the 27 Member States at the end of 2012 (based mainly on 2011 data) provide the Commission with the first opportunity to report, during a programming period, on progress in delivering outputs and results and to highlight important and timely messages on the potential of Cohesion Policy to play its part in the EU’s economic recovery. The Commission identifies the investment areas where action must be taken to speed up the selection and execution of projects co-financed in 2007 2013 in order to meet the objectives set.
The Role of Services for Competitiveness in Manufacturing
Hildegunn Kyvik Nordas and Yunhee Kim, OECD
This study analyzes the relationships between competitiveness in manufacturing and the quality of key supporting services. Three indicators of competitiveness are considered: the degree of product differentiation, unit prices obtained in export markets and the duration of trade. The density of telecoms networks and the reliability of electricity supply stand out as the most crucial for competitive manufacturing. In addition the ease at which contracts can be enforced and the time it takes to export and import goods are strongly related to competitiveness. The project methodology allows the authorsto go beyond a one size fits all policy analysis. Interestingly, they find that in low-income countries, the impact of services quality and policy on competitiveness is highest in low-technology industries; in middle-income countries it is highest in medium-technology sectors and in high-income countries the impact is highest in medium-high and high-technology industries. This suggests that better services contribute to moving up the value chain in industries where a country already has technological capacity and comparative advantage, but better services alone may not stimulate product differentiation in sectors where a country is far from the competitive edge – at least not in the short run. Policy reforms needed are to simplify procedures for contract enforcement, liberalization of FDI, strengthen pro-competitive regulation of network services, and eliminate tariffs. The paper conclues that new ways of doing business where manufacturers build relationships with customers and compete on the basis of products they are willing to pay a premium for has the potential to become an important driving force for growth after the great recession, provided that adequate support from competitive services markets is in place.
U.S. Goverment Accountability Office
In fiscal year 2010, 13 federal agencies invested over $3 billion in 209 programs designed to increase knowledge of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields and attainment of STEM degrees. The number of programs within agencies ranged from 3 to 46, with the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation administering more than half of the 209 programs. Almost a third of all programs had obligations of $1 million or less, while some had obligations of over $100 million. Beyond programs specifically focused on STEM education, agencies funded other broad efforts that contributed to enhancing STEM education. Eighty-three percent of the programs GAO identified overlapped to some degree with at least 1 other program in that they offered similar services to similar target groups in similar STEM fields to achieve similar objectives. Many programs have a broad scope–serving multiple target groups with multiple services. However, even when programs overlap, the services they provide and the populations they serve may differ in meaningful ways and would therefore not necessarily be duplicative. Nonetheless, the programs are similar enough that they need to be well coordinated and guided by a robust strategic plan.
Beyond Industrial Policy: Emerging Issues and New Trends
Ken Warwick, OECD
This paper reviews the evidence on emerging thinking and new trends in the sphere of industrial policy. The paper adopts a broad and inclusive definition of industrial policy, and proposes a new typology based on the orientation of policy and the policy domain. Looking at a typology according to the policy domain, the paper proposes a framework based on growth accounting, which parallels the evolution of thinking about the rationale for industrial policy interventions, which has moved from a traditional approach based largely on product market interventions (production subsidies, state ownership, tariff protection), through market failure-correcting taxes and subsidies operating mainly on factor markets (R&D incentives, training subsidies, investment allowances, help with access to finance) to a focus on interventions that help build systems, create networks, develop institutions and align strategic priorities.
A Manifesto for the Creative Economy
NESTA
The UK’s creative economy is one of its great national strengths, historically deeply rooted and accounting for around one-tenth of the whole economy. It provides jobs for 2.5 million people – more than in financial services, advanced manufacturing or construction – and in recent years, this creative workforce has grown four times faster than the workforce as a whole. But behind this success lies much disruption and business uncertainty, associated with digital technologies. Previously profitable business models have been swept away, young companies from outside the UK have dominated new internet markets, and some UK creative businesses have struggled to compete. UK policymakers too have failed to keep pace with developments in North America and parts of Asia. But it is not too late to refresh tired policies. This manifesto sets out a 10-point plan to bolster one of the UK’s fastest growing sectors.
Cities, Clusters & Regions
Rene Wintjes, Serdar Turkeli and Florian Henning, UNU-MERIT
Because of the localized specific need and the specific capacity to provide solutions, metropolitan regions are in a sort of ‘lead-market’ situation for solutions to societal challenges. This paper addresses innovation policy concepts and practices to address societal challenges in large metropolitan areas in Europe.
Smart Cities: Seoul – A Case Study
ITU-T
This report analyses Seoul’s implementation of its “Smart Seoul 2015” project, providing a best-practice guide to the construction and operation of a smart city. The report investigates the conceptual underpinnings of Smart Seoul, the use of smart technologies and mobile-web applications to provide citizen-centric services, and the role of technical standards as the precondition for smart city functionality.
Statistics & Indicators
Insight: Class and Education in New York and LA
The Martin Prosperity Institute (MPI)
This Insight is the second in the Martin Prosperity Institute’s continuing Geography of Class and Education Insight series, which depicts the occupational class and human capital divide within cities in the U.S. The MPI is constantly analyzing the relationships between geography, occupation, and education, which are furthered in this series by examining census tract results within metros as opposed to across metros. While the last Insight displayed the results for the entire U.S., this report focuses on two of the largest metros in the nation: New York and Los Angeles. At opposite ends of the country, no two cities are more influential or well known for being creative hubs than New York and LA; this Insight will outline the class and education divide in these two metros.
Policy Digest
Innovation Impacts: Measurement and Assessment
The Council of Canadian Academies
It is widely accepted and understood that innovation is critical to economic competitiveness and social progress. To ensure that innovation investments are spent most effectively and remain a priority in the face of public austerity measures, it is essential that decision-makers obtain the most reliable estimates of the impacts of innovation investments. To help prepare for the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead, the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation asked the Council of Canadian Academies to assess best practices in measuring the socio-economic impacts of government spending on research and innovation activities that could be applied in the Ontario context.
In July 2011, MRI posed the following question to the Council of Canadian Academies (the Council):
How can the actual and potential outcomes and impacts of Ontario government spending on innovation and scientific activities be measured, including but not limited to the effects on GDP in Ontario, generation and transfer of knowledge; creation of new ventures; and access to seed, development and growth capital?
In response, the Council appointed a panel of Canadian and international experts (The Expert Panel on the Socio-economic Impacts of Innovation Investments) from the academic, business, and public sectors. To address the charge, and its three sub-questions, the Panel catalogued the portfolio of Ontario innovation investments, conducted an extensive academic and public policy literature review of leading-edge measurement methodologies, and explored the best international practices in impact assessment. Then, drawing on its collective understanding of innovation and experience in impact measurement, the Panel developed a new conceptual framework for understanding innovation measurement and assessment.
Program Impact Measurement
Governments are not only faced with competing demands for public funds, but also with increased pressure to demonstrate value-for-money. With a surfeit of public spending priorities, public investments of any kind, including innovation investments, must be seen to generate a significant return. To ensure that innovation investments generate desired returns, are spent most effectively, and remain a priority in the face of austerity measures, the Government of Ontario must obtain the most rigorous and reliable estimates of the impacts of its innovation support programs.
Measuring the impacts of the Government of Ontario’s investments in innovation requires four steps:
1. Cataloguing innovation investment programs: the Panel identified six classes of Ontario innovation support programs: direct academic support, public and not-for-profit research organizations, innovation intermediaries, direct business support, indirect business support, and public procurement.
2. Identifying program objectives to determine what impacts to expect;
3. Data collection;
4. Evaluation.
Program impact measurement can provide robust and reliable estimates of the returns to innovation investments. There is, however, an important and fundamental trade-off between data requirements and the timeframe in which impact measurement can be conducted and the robustness of these estimates. If the goal of measurement is to produce estimates of short-term impact, the best source of data is a properly designed client-based survey that minimizes the subjectivity of responses. If the goal of measurement is to firmly establish rigorous, reliable, and long-term causal estimates of program impact, state-of-the-art approaches, like random field experiments and regression discontinuity design, require a specific program design, a substantial quantity of data, and a significant amount of time. Ultimately, the feasibility of a measurement methodology depends not only on the goals of measurement, but also on the objectives and structure of an innovation program, which determine the expected socio-economic impacts.
Innovation Ecosystem Assessment
Program impact measurements alone cannot capture the nature of innovation. Innovation is not a process isolated at the program level, with a linear relationship from investment to impact. Assessing the full impact of innovation investments requires capturing their contributions to the functioning of the entire innovation system. The Panel developed its firm-centric innovation ecosystem framework that conceptualizes innovation as the result of an intricate set of activities and linkages between innovation actors. The sheer volume of interactions and complicated feedback loops makes it difficult to understand the workings of an innovation ecosystem at the micro level. Instead, the crucial components for analysis are the key aggregate behaviours that emerge from this network of micro-interactions:
Knowledge generation – Created in universities, colleges, public research organizations, governments, and firms, and codified in the forms of publications/patents/products or embodied in human capital, knowledge represents the ideas from which novel products and processes emerge.
Innovation facilitation – The enabling of innovation is often performed by innovation intermediaries, through financial support, networking capabilities, and mentoring/advice.
Policy-making – Six types of government policies and regulation can influence the health of an innovation ecosystem: competition policy; trade policy; intellectual property; sector-specific regulations; good governance, transparency, and corruption; and public innovation platforms.
Demand – This behaviour is a reflection of the needs and preferences of market customers, other end users, and governments.
Firm innovation – This is the central behaviour of the innovation ecosystem with firms playing the principal role in translating ideas into innovation by using the resources of the ecosystem.
The state of the five aggregate behaviours governs the effectiveness of the innovation ecosystem in fostering and sustaining firm innovation, and ultimately generating impact. It follows that the state of the entire ecosystem, or regional and sectoral ecosystems, can be assessed by examining indicators of the five aggregate behaviours of the firm-centric innovation ecosystem. The firm-centric innovation ecosystem is an approach to assessment, rather than to measurement.
Evaluating the Ontario Innovation Ecosystem
Program impact measurements and indicators of aggregate behaviours can be combined to quantitatively evaluate the state of the innovation ecosystem. This involves developing a scorecard that organizes rigorous estimates of the returns to innovation investments at the program level by the ecosystem behaviour the program supports. Measurements and indicators can be compared over time or across jurisdictions. Developing an Ontario scorecard that fully reflects the Panel’s firm-centric innovation ecosystem framework is currently not feasible because of insufficient data. Rigorous estimates of the impact of the suite of innovation support programs (six classes) have not been obtained according to the measurement approaches identified by the Panel. With the exception of knowledge generation, much of the data for indicators of the aggregate behaviours of the innovation ecosystem have not yet been collected. In fact, viable and agreed-upon indicators for policy-making and demand have not even been developed. Existing data only allow for the development of an incomplete scorecard; however, areas of Ontario strength in innovation and innovation support can be partially assessed by examining previously developed scorecards from other sources. In this sense, scorecards reside on a continuum, with the Panel’s firm-centric innovation ecosystem approach as the best practice and previous scorecards as the best accomplished to date.
This largely quantitative approach may overlook contextual features of an innovation ecosystem and hide details of the interactions and feedbacks at the micro level. Quantitative analysis alone does not capture shifts in the mix, or expansions in the scope, of innovation investments and innovation policy. As such, more qualitative methods should complement quantitative approaches to innovation ecosystem assessment. Innovation case studies and surveys can be conducted of specific innovation actors (e.g., innovation intermediaries), economic sectors, or entire ecosystems. Governments can use independent innovation investment and ecosystem evaluations to increase the effectiveness of the ecosystem by pinpointing bottlenecks and leverage points for innovation investments and policy to exploit. These evaluations, often conducted by blue ribbon panels of foreign experts, enable governments to monitor the state of the innovation ecosystem. Continually commissioning and updating evaluations of the impact of innovation investments and the state of the innovation ecosystem are standard practice in many leading innovation countries.
Applying the Panel’s overall approach requires several commitments. First, to rigorously and reliably estimate program impact, according to the methodologies identified by the Panel, program evaluation would ideally be built directly into the design and delivery of innovation programs themselves. Second, more indicators of the five aggregate behaviours require collection, based on data from repeated cross-sectional observations and longitudinal data. This includes conducting benchmarking exercises of policy-making and demand. Third, the state of the Ontario innovation ecosystem could be constantly monitored by updating program impact measurements and commissioning independent innovation investment and ecosystem evaluations.
Events
AAAS Forum on Science and Technology
Washington, DC, 2-3 May, 2013
The annual AAAS Forum on Science and Technology Policy, now in its 38th year, is the conference for people interested in public policy issues facing the science, engineering, and higher education communities. It is the place where insiders go to learn what is happening and what is likely to happen in the coming year on the federal budget and the growing number of policy issues that affect researchers and their institutions. Come to the Forum, learn about the future of S&T policy, and engage with the people who will shape it.
Shape and Be Shaped: The Future Dynamics of Regional Development
Tampere, Finland, 5-8 May, 2013
In the many regions and localities of the world, there is an ever-growing need to find new solutions for the future, as they are increasingly confronted with intertwined sets of ecological, social and economic difficulties as well as new opportunities brought to them by the globalising economy. Indeed, there is a need to work for more balanced and sustainable development and cross the many institutional boundaries that prevent new solutions from being created. What makes all of this a demanding set of policy challenges, is that regions and localities need to find ways to manage their own destiny while being manipulated by many forces. The central idea underpinning the RSA 2013 conference in Tampere is that there is now an urgent need to better to understand how regions and localities can adapt to current challenges and deal with the wicked issues of sustainability by developing new multi-actor governance, policy-making and leadership capacities. The conference offers researchers and workers in local and regional development an opportunity to collectively explore and discuss these key issues from a multitude of perspectives and with different theoretical stand points and with empirical observations from different parts of the world.
Cluster Academy: Learning from the Clusterland Upper Austria”cluster region”
Linz, Austria, 14-17 May, 2013
The Cluster Academy shows how successful clusters work, using Clusterland Upper Austria Ltd. as an example and gives an input, how these processes could be implemented in your region. An additional benefit is the networking and exchange of experience effect with international participants, sharing the same interests in cluster activities. The cluster management workshop covers the areas of knowledge management, initiation and support of cooperation projects, qualification and event management, marketing & PR, internationalization, financing and evaluation & measuring. This year, more interactive formats of participation such as an ample case-study to complement lectures, field reports and presentations are being designed. Numerous direct visits to cluster companies should spot the motivation of being active in a cluster. Attractive side events give a chance to get to know the participants and the city of Linz.
9th International PhD School on Innovation and Economic Development
Tampere, Finland, 20-31 May, 2013
The aim of the Globelics Academy PhD-School is to support the training of Ph.D. students from different parts of the world and who are writing theses on issues related with innovation and economic development. The Academy brings together frontier researchers in innovation with Ph.D. students from developing countries in order to inspire and qualify their work as well as in order to help them to join high-quality research networks in their field of research.
16th Uddevalla Symposium 2013: Innovation, High-Growth Entrepreneurship and Regional Development
Kansas City, 13-15 June, 2013
The critical role of innovation and entrepreneurship in regional economic development in terms of productivity and employment growth has been well documented theoretically as well as empirically by researchers in recent decades. The specific mechanisms through which innovation stimulates regional economic development are less well established. It is often assumed that entrepreneurship in the form of new firm formation and the growth of newly established firms plays a critical role, but how, why, when and under what conditions is less clear. Empirical studies show that a limited share of new business ventures have the capacity to rapidly up-scale and to generate substantial new jobs in the regions where they are launched. From the perspective of regional policy makers, this implies that it is critical to understand what regional economic milieus are capable of generating innovations that can be the basis of high-growth entrepreneurship as well as provide the right environment for entrepreneurs to launch entrepreneurial initiatives.Against this background, we seek papers that, in particular, topics related to exploring these themes.
Experience the Creative Economy
Toronto, 18-21 June, 2013
The 6th Annual Experience the Creative Economy conference is a forum for emerging scholars who are engaged in research related to the creative economy. The conference brings together up to 25 individuals from around the world to share and discuss their research. In particular, the small and focused setting provides participants with the opportunity to: present their work; receive feedback; refine and develop research methods; and join an ongoing network of collaboration and exchange.
Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurship, the Triple Helix and Local Economic Development
London, UK, 10 July, 2013
The creation of innovative new firms and the development of SME innovation are strongly influenced by the extent to which localities offer environments that favour the transfer of knowledge to local business and provide the other resources required for innovative firm development, including skills, finance, advice, and supply chain partners. The concept of the ‘triple helix’ captures the interplay of government, research and industry in the promotion of business innovation and provides a framework for policymakers seeking to understand how to promote local knowledge-based entrepreneurship. The workshop will use this framework to examine the policy actions that governments can take to promote innovative new firm creation and SME innovation in local economies by improving conditions for knowledge transfer and knowledge-based entrepreneurship.
Brighton, UK, 10-12 July, 2013
Europe’s relations with the wider world are continuously undergoing change. The urban and regional significance of these changing relations remains surprisingly poorly understood. The global financial and economic crisis, the dramatic events of late 2010 and 2011 in the Middle East and North Africa, the continuing crisis in Europe, and the global rise of ‘new powers’ are each impacting on how Europe, its citizens, and its cities and regions are connected to the wider world. The 9th European Urban and Regional Studies conference aims to consider a wide range of consequences of these changes as well as other themes relating to European urban and regional change.
2nd European Colloquium on Culture, Creativity and the Economy
Berlin, Germany, 10-11 October, 2013
During the past decades myriad links between culture, creativity and economic practice have become major topics of interdisciplinary debates. No longer restricted to a few sectors, there is a growing consensus that the intersections between these spheres and symbolic and culturally embedded values in particular, pervade the global economy. Indeed, the formerly distinct logics of the cultural and the economic have become increasingly indiscernible. Similarly, the notion of creativity, once used to express exceptional talent, activities and outcomes, is now considered a key component to success in all fields of economic activity. At the same time, the Internet has revolutionized the conditions under which cultural production and distribution as well as creative collaboration can be undertaken. Despite the high degree of uncertainty about future developments, policy makers as well as business managers are highly optimistic, if not enthusiastic, about the ability of symbolic values and creativity to drive sustained economic growth and regional development. This colloquium will take up and continue an international and interdisciplinary debate on these topics.
Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy
Atlanta, GA, 26-28 September, 2013
The Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy provides a showcase for the highest quality scholarship addressing the multidimensional challenges and interrelated characteristics of science and innovation policy and processes. This year’s sessions will explore the research front addressing the broad range of issues central to the structure, function, performance and outcomes of the science and innovation enterprises.
Subscriptions & Comments
Please forward this newsletter to anyone you think will find it of value. We look forward to collaborating with you on this initiative. If you would like to comment on, or contribute to, the content, subscribe or unsubscribe, please contact us at ipl.munkschool@utoronto.ca.
This newsletter is prepared by Jen Nelles.
Project manager is David A. Wolfe.