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
Nine Life Sciences Centers to Receive US$280 Million NIH Funding
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) have announced a four-year plan to invest approximately $70 million a year in a nationwide network of life science research centers. The Molecular Libraries Probe Production Centers Network will employ high-tech screening methods to identify molecules that can be used as probes to explore the functions of cells. This research is intended to help increase the pace of discovery in the field of chemical probes, which have become a key resource in fighting disease. The network is the second phase of the Molecular Libraries and Imaging Initiative and is part of NIH’s Roadmap for Medical Research program. The Roadmap program was launched in 2004 to support initiatives that address fundamental gaps in U.S. medical research. Funding for the network will be made available through the roadmap initiative for the initial four years, and then transition to other funding sources in years five and six. The nine associated research centers will screen a library of more than 300,000 small molecules to evaluate their potential as chemical probes. Network data will be available to the public through NIH’s National Library of Medicine.
Canada’s Technology Triangle Inc (CTT Inc) has been selected as one of the top Canadian Economic Development Groups by Site Selection magazine, a leading US-based source for expansion planning information. The awards will be presented on September 15 at the Economic Developers Association of Canada’s 4th Annual Conference in Fredericton, New Brunswick. The “Top Canadian Groups” is designed to recognize the most powerful local economic development groups in Canada. This class of ranking is based on total projects, total project investment and new jobs, investment and jobs per capita, and innovative programming and Web tools. Other award-winners among the top 10 this year include Calgary Economic Development Corp., Edmonton Economic Development Corp., Greater Halifax Partnership, London Economic Development, Montréal International, PÔLE Québec Chaudière-Appalaches, Quinte Economic Development Commission, Sarnia-Lambton Economic Partnership and Saskatoon Regional Economic Development Authority.
Editor's Pick
Best-Performing Cities 2008: Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained
Ross DeVol, Armen Bedroussian, Kevin Klowden and Soojung Kim, The Milken Institute
This year’s rankings of where America’s jobs are being created and sustained shows the impact of a broad rebound in the technology sector, along with strong activity in exports and energy production. Several metros that once dominated the rankings fell due to a sharp downturn in their housing and construction markets; locations in Florida and California took particularly sharp hits. Cities that depend on industry and manufacturing also continue to show a steady long-term decline. The lowest performers on this year’s index once again come from the industrial Midwest, with nine of the lowest-ranked cities found in Michigan or Ohio
Innovation Policy
Margherita Russo and Federica Rossi
Recent developments in innovation theory and policy have led policymakers to assign particular importance to supporting networks of cooperation among heterogeneous economic actors, especially in production systems composed of small and medium enterprises. Such innovative policies call for parallel innovations in policy analysis, monitoring and assessment. This analysis of a policy experiment aimed at supporting innovation networks in the Italian region of Tuscany intends to address some issues connected with the design, monitoring and evaluation of such interventions. Combining tools from ethnographic research and social networks analysis, this paper explores the structural elements of the policy program, its macroscopic impact on the regional innovation system, and the success of individual networks in attaining their specific objectives. This innovative approach allows the authors to derive some general methodological suggestions for the design and evaluation of similar programs.
Kate Hoye, Richard Gold, and David Castle
This report summarizes the findings of a workshop, entitled “Bridging the Invention- Innovation Gap in the Commercialization of Publicly-Funded Research.” The workshop aimed to create a forum in which leaders in the Canadian innovation system could reflect
upon and discuss the ways in which the commercialization of publicly-funded research is supported in Canada and arrive at actionable recommendations on how governments, PROs, and industry can better support commercialization in the near future. The participants identified four objectives as critical to the commercialization of publicly-funded research in Canada: Identify and communicate clear and appropriate goals for the commercialization of publicly funded-research; Create a Canadian focus on international competitiveness; Increase the number of innovation champions in business; Foster business demand for innovation, such that more Canadian firms seek to compete by offering improved products and services. The participants also suggested strategies for the implementation of these objectives. Their recommendations are described in detail in the report.
Stephen J Ezell and Robert D Atkinson, The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF)
The most pressing question in the debate about the United States international economic competitiveness is if the U.S. is successfully pushing to maintain its competitive lead well into the future, not only the question if the U.S. is currently ahead, according to a report released today by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF). The latter concern, as related to comparative international science and technology prowess, and its implications for national security was the subject of a June 2008 report prepared by the RAND Corporation for the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense. After examining RAND’s analysis, ITIF prepared its own response and says the RAND report has serious structural and analytic flaws that misread the fundamental position of U.S. science and technology. ITIFs 18-page document deconstructs RANDs positions and presents its own case of how the U.S. lead is eroding or even disappearing in certain circumstances, while in turn provoking the debate over utilizing particular input, output and outcome indicators as well as the proper timeframes of benchmark metrics.
Mari Hjelt, Pim den Hertog, Robbin te Velde,Mikko Syrjänen and Paavo-Petri Ahonen, TEKES
Governance refers to the systems and practices that governments use to set policy priorities and agenda, implement policies and obtain knowledge about their impacts and effectiveness. These governance systems and practices are in a permanent state of flux reflecting the changes in the political and societal systems that the policies interact with. Science, technology and innovation (STI) policy is no exception. These policies are in the middle of a period of transition. To support the policy learning related to the STI policy transition, VISION Era-Net1 partners initiated a study to compare and analyze recent innovation policy governance developments in nine partner countries – Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Flanders, Ireland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. This study aims to identify the major challenges facing the governance of national innovation systems in Europe (and most notably in the participating VISION Era-Net countries) and explores what factors create pressure for renewal, why this happens, and whether the national and regional policy responses vary.
Cities, Clusters & Regions
Christoph Grimpea and Roberto Patuelli
Nanomaterials are seen as a key technology for the 21st Century, and much is expected of them in terms of innovation and economic growth. They could open the way to many radically new applications, which would form the basis of innovative products. In this context, it seems all the more important for regions to put their own innovation systems in place, and to ensure that they offer a suitable location for such activities in order to benefit from the expected growth. Many regions have already done so by establishing ‘science parks’ and ‘nanoclusters’. As nanomaterials are still in their infancy, both public research institutes and private businesses could play a vital role in the process. This paper investigates what conditions and configurations allow a regional innovation system to be competitive in a cutting-edge technology like nanomaterials. The report analyzes European Patent Office data at the German district level (NUTS-3) on applications for nanomaterial patents, in order to chart the effects of localized research and development (R&D) in the public and private sector. The authors estimate two negative binomial models in a knowledge production function framework and include a spatial filtering approach to adjust for spatial effects. The results indicate that there is a significant positive effect of both public and private R&D on the production of nanomaterial patents. Moreover, we find a positive interaction between them which hints at the importance of their co-location for realizing the full potential of an emerging technology like nanomaterials.
The Entrepreneurial Advantage of World Cities
Zoltan Acs, Niels Bosma, and Rolf Sternberg
Recent discussions in the economic geography literature increasingly focuses on creative cities and the importance of creativity for achieving economic growth. Considering the increased attention on urban areas it is not surprising that the regional dimension of entrepreneurship is a subject of great interest. This paper sets out a framework encompassing the individual process between entrepreneurial perceptions and entrepreneurial activity and demonstrates how the urban environment can have an impact on this process. It creates entrepreneurship indices for 34 world cities exploiting the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) Database 2001-2006. The paper investigates differences between the city level and country-level for a selection of the indices. These exercises can be seen as initial tests of the ‘entrepreneurial advantage of cities.’ Based on the literature the authors expect that most indices will be higher for world cities, although exceptions are also plausible, for instance in world cities where the government resides. The findings predominantly confirm the entrepreneurial advantage of world cities.
Statistics & Indicators
2006 Industrial R&D Intensity per State
According to National Science Foundation (NSF) data released two weeks ago, companies spent in aggregate $247.7 billion on R&D expenditures performed in the U.S. in 2006. Leading the nation was California, with $58.4 billion in industrial R&D, followed by Michigan ($16.5 billion), Massachusetts ($15.6 billion), New Jersey ($14.6 billion), and Texas ($13.3 billion). SSTI has prepared a table presenting the state rankings for industrial R&D performed in 2006, the per-state gross state product in 2006, and each state’s industrial R&D intensity. The industrial R&D intensity is the ratio of industry-based R&D to the gross state product. Using these calculations, Massachusetts experienced the largest industrial R&D intensity in 2006, at 4.64 percent. This was followed by Michigan (4.38 percent), Connecticut (4.04 percent), Washington (3.89 percent), and California (3.35 percent). The industrial R&D intensity for the U.S. as a whole was calculated to be 1.89 percent.
Policy Digest
Regional Innovation Policy Impact Assessment and Benchmarking Guidebook
Innovating Regions in Europe (IRE)
The focus of this guideline is to introduce innovation policy impact assessment and benchmarking at the regional level. This document is targeted at two audiences: on the one hand it is aimed at the large community of professionals who have different roles
in regional innovation policy who may not have been much involved in evaluations yet, but who would like to have an overview on concepts, approaches and practical implementation of impact assessment and benchmarking. This refers both to people who are involved in the preparation of strategies and the design of programs and their implementation, as well as to those who are involved in specific innovation activities and support operations. It also targets the innovation policy professionals, particularly those responsible for regional strategy, who are seeking to increase their know-how on impact assessment and benchmarking in Europe. This includes people responsible for the set-up, implementation, follow-up, and the evaluation of regional innovation policies.
This guideline is based on the results and experiences of the first systematic attempt in Europe to develop tools and methodologies
for Impact assessment and benchmarking of innovation policy at a regional level. This has been done thought the eight projects of the pilot action of Regional Innovation Policy Impact Assessment and Benchmarking, undertaken within the framework of the Innovation Regions in Europe Network. These projects were pioneering in Europe in creating evaluation systems based on the needs of actual regions while at the same time putting the systems in practice and ensuring that they can be universal to any regional setting. The findings presented here are thus based on the practical, concrete feedback obtained from testing the tools and systems in participating regions.
Benefits of Regional Impact Assessment and Benchmarking
Helping decision making and the development of strategies and programs: The analysis of the regional context, that is the current performance of the whole region, the strengths and weaknesses of the regional innovation systems as well as needs of companies helps to identify the need for policy intervention. For example, the policies can seek to enhance the strengths and counteract the weaknesses. Comparing different contexts through benchmarking can help identify areas where policy intervention are required and can also help provide insight as to what policies and actions are conducted in other regions.
Monitoring progress: Impact assessment and benchmarking provide a number of benefits during the policy implementation. First of all, it is necessary to see if the policies are actually being implemented as planned. The innovation policy-making process is so complicated with different actors playing a role at different stages and in different fields, and with some regions often having different budgets as well using both national and European programs to implement their strategies, that without an integrated review of the implementation, it would not be easy to monitor progress. IA&B also provides important feedback during project implementation.
Improving policy design and implementation: Conducting IA&B implies a choice: the choice to commit resources to reviewing a policy area and to examine the extent of the outcomes. Working towards a better understanding of what makes a policy a success implies a willingness to redesign and improve on previous policy. IA&B allows the detection of inconsistencies, gaps, and overlaps in innovation support activities. The inefficiencies can be removed as the policy reviews move forward, thereby improving policy actions. Therefore IA&B brings an improvement in policy implementation, and potentially improvements in policy design.
Improvement of the policy making process: Reviewing the impact of innovation policy in a region allows for policy learning and improves the capacity of the policymakers to understand the policy mechanism and get new and better ideas for the future. Impact assessment and benchmarking can be integrated in policy making from the start. If impact assessment is repeated or undertaken on a continuous basis it allows an incremental and structured improvement in policy. IA&B usually takes place more than once: it measures change over time. When repeated on a continuous basis a structured improvement in policy is allowed. Over time and across regions the collection of results on IA&B improves insight on the innovation system, which should help to improve processes overall.
Legitimizing policies and raising awareness: IA is normally conducted in a scientific manner and is sometimes undertaken by external experts. Benchmarking is a comparison between organizations that are usually independent of one another. Therefore this give a certain scientific legitimacy to the results emerging from IA&B exercises. So IA&B provides objective, measurable, and often independent proof of the results from policy actions. This external proof is reassuring for those planning and implementing policy, and facilitate a policy dialogue with the stakeholders based on hard-measures.
Difficulties with Conducting Impact Assessment and Benchmarking
The nature of innovation: Innovation is complex. Just agreeing on a definition of what innovation is, and deciding what encourages innovation is a challenge. However, this complexity does not prevent meaningful measures being applied to aspects of innovation. The fact that innovation can be stimulated in numerous ways and can be tracked based on very diverse outcomes in fact increases
the opportunity for IA&B.
Innovation scope of action: An extension of this problem is measuring impacts when one has to attribute outcomes to different actors when many and different actors are involved in the process. For example polices of: past and current governments, institutions including regional agencies and universities, companies, and individuals all interact on innovation support. In some countries the competence to support innovation is held by either national or regional governments. This can lead to difficulties attributing outcomes to innovation policies of one or the other.
Time as a factor in policy outcome measures: An important difficulty with impact assessment is the time-lag between implementing a policy and the impact following that action. The time-lag between innovation policy and its outcomes clearly impacts on what can be measured and proofs of results. Innovation policy is complex and changes to environmental conditions take time to filter through and to influence innovation actors such as companies, investors, researchers etc. The use of IA&B to gather credit or praise from policy actions is a powerful motivating force for policy actors. However, this can work in favour of actions that give short-term and easily measured returns. There is evidence to support the idea that innovation is incremental, benefiting from a multiplicity of complex effects that interact, and build over time.
Overcoming Difficulties, Reaping Benefits
The report continues to discuss the mechanics of impact assessment and benchmarking, as well as difficulties with measurement and bias. It also provides a roadmap to help organize the IA&B process and a collection of approaches and tools. The relevance of each of these issues, approaches and tools is very context dependent and strategies need to be adapted to regional particularities. The report concludes with a summary of the eight assessment and benchmarking projects conducted through IRE. Each of these offers insights into the processes and specific challenges each assessment encountered. Using these cases policy makers in other jurisdictions can learn and develop effective strategies to overcome the difficulties of conducting IA&B exercises of regional innovation policies and maximize the effectiveness of political interventions.
Events
Building High Performance Regions: Cluster Facilitator Training
Saskatchewan, 17-19 and 23-25 September, 2008
Active cluster development requires hands-on facilitation, ideally from trained facilitators within the locality. In response to this need, Cluster Navigators has developed an interactive cluster training workshop to introduce the process of
cluster development and equip facilitators with the necessary skills. These training workshops have been presented worldwide in 30 countries and are based on a systematic Five Phase, Twelve Step process. The three-day program provides an opportunity to take a number of local clusters through the development process. Clusters are selected from those that course participants are familiar with, and provide an opportunity to ‘learn by doing’.
Mexico City, 22-24 September, 2008
GLOBELICS (Global Network for Economics of Learning, Innovation, and Competence Building Systems) is an international network of scholars who apply the concept of “learning, innovation, and competence building system” (LICS) as their framework and are dedicated to the strengthening of LICS in developing countries, emerging economies and societies in transition. The research aims at locating unique systemic features as well as generic good practices to enlighten policy making relating to innovation, competence building, international competitiveness, regional development, labor market and human capital development. In an increasingly global and knowledge-based competition, management strategies need to be based upon an understanding of these framework conditions and the public policies which seek to regulate the environment. For the sixth conference to be held in Mexico City papers that contribute to the understanding of ‘Styles’ or modes of Development (or Political Economy of Development): paradigms of public policies, conflicts, trade-offs and choices among alternative public policies will be welcome.
Cluster Policy in European Regions
Berlin, Germany, 22-24 September, 2008
This international conference provides the participants with information on current development of European cluster initiatives and efficient cluster management policies. International experts will demonstrate a wide range of solutions for national and regional authorities in thought-provoking presentations and workshops.
PRIME International Conference 2008
Mexico City, 24-26 September, 2008
Both the Latin American and European countries recognize that innovation and knowledge are central to the future growth and vitality of their economies and the improvement of quality of life of their citizens. To be successful policies aimed at encouraging research and innovation should recognize the importance of specific institutional arrangements and adaptation to the different sectors and knowledge fields. The Europe-Latin America Conference on Science and Innovation Policy will explore the research/knowledge base, the factual and the normative principles that inform those policies, taking account of the current dynamic international context, promoting mutual learning between the communities of researchers, analysts, R&D managers and policy makers. The aim of the conference is: to stimulate the exchange of experiences about science, technology and innovation policies in Latin America and European countries to promote mutual learning, improve the quality of the research in the field, enhance the impact of the research in the policy making and foster the diffusion of the best practices amongst countries of Europe and Latin America, considering an adequate balance between convergence and diversity.
GLOBELICS International Conference 2008
Mexico City, 24-26 September, 2008
For the sixth conference to be held in Mexico City papers that contribute to the understanding of ‘Styles’ or modes of Development (or Political Economy of Development): paradigms of public policies, conflicts, trade-offs and choices among alternative public policies will be welcome. The conference will be organized around the following themes on the following issues: Innovation, economic development and inequality (Education, Health, Employment, Migration, Gender Equity, Income Distribution). The conditions for developing sustainable systems of innovation. Biofuel, energy systems, water supply, transport, tourism and sustainable development. The role of new ‘horizontal technologies’ (ICTs and biotechnologies). Innovation in indigenous knowledge systems and in traditional sectors (e.g. agriculture, handcraft, clothing, eco-tourism, etc.). Factors affecting differences in economic growth rates: convergence vs divergence in productivity and welfare standards. Patterns of sectoral catching-up. Globalization, autonomy/openness and development. The links between microeconomic learning and macroeconomic policies. Forces inducing learning and the expansion of domestic technological capabilities. Innovation, SME and local development. Factors of attractiveness and embeddedness of the MNCs in local/regional/national systems. Privatization of knowledge, Intellectual Property Right (IPR) and development. International cooperation and national innovation policies to face global challenges (poverty, diseases, natural disasters).
5th Annual Conference of The Technopolicy Network: Implementing Regional Innovation Strategies
Halifax, Nova Scotia, 25-26 September, 2008
The fifth annual conference of the Technopolicy Network will focus on the development and implementation of various regional strategies across the world. Over the course of two days, several international speakers will give insight and address topics including why a regional innovation strategy is essential, what kinds of strategies have been developed, and how to organise the different elements of a successful region. The opportunity to exchange experiences through connecting questions and answers from participants in a network auction will also be provided.
St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, 16-18 October, 2008
The Leslie Harris Centre of Regional Policy and Development, Memorial University of Newfoundland is hosting an International Conference, with over 90 submissions received with themes ranging from:How to identify opportunities and challenges to knowledge sharing; How to work with the media in connecting research to the community; How to translate knowledge to influence policy and decision-making; How communities and non-governmental organizations can “reach in” to influence research and knowledge generation; How outreach centres can evaluate and maximize their impact; How institutions in other countries are doing it, from Iceland and Ireland, to the U.S. and the Philippines; How Canada’s research funding councils are developing knowledge transfer and knowledge mobilization strategies.
Regional Comparative Advantage and Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurship
Amsterdam, Netherlands, 9-10 October, 2008
The organizers invite submissions for empirical and theoretical papers on the financing of knowledge-based entrepreneurial firms, on the influence of venture capital on firms’ ability to translate technological advances into successful products, and on the contribution of knowledge-based entrepreneurship to regional dynamics.
Seville, Spain, 16-17 October, 2008
Following the success of 2004 and 2006 events, the International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA) has become a major occasion for FTA experts, practitioners and decision-makers to bring their ideas and knowledge together in a highly interactive environment. As with previous FTA events, the 2008 Conference places emphasis on diversity of views by attracting participants from a wide geographical base. Academics, practitioners as well as public and private sector decision makers from Europe, North America, Asia, Latin America, Africa and Australasia are invited to broaden the network and to increase understanding of advances in the field of FTA.
The 5th International Conference on Innovation and Management (ICIM2008)
Maastricht, Netherlands, 10-11 December, 2008
Organized by UNU-MERIT (The Netherlands) and supported by Wuhan University of Technology (China) and Yamaguchi University (Japan), This conference will bring together academics, practitioners and other professionals involved in the filed of innovation and management. The conference format includes plenary and parallel sessions with both academic and practitioner presentations and workshops. In addition, the conference will provide networking opportunities together with a taste of local culture.
Understanding and Shaping Regions: Spatial, Social and Economic Futures
Leuven, Belgium, 6-8 April, 2008
Many topics will be discussed such as regional policy and evaluation, regions as innovative hubs, economic restructuring and regional transformation, and local and regional economic development. Abstract submission deadline: Sunday, 4th January 2009.
Glasgow, Scotland, 17-19 June, 2008
Triple Helix VII offers a multi-disciplinary forum for experts from universities, industry and government. The Conference is designed to attract leading authorities from across the world who will share their knowledge and experience, drawing a link between research, policy, and practice in sustainable development. The Conference will bring together policy-makers, academics, researchers, postgraduate students, and key representatives from business and industry. The theme for Triple Helix VII – “The role of Triple Helix in the Global Agenda of Innovation, Competitiveness and Sustainability” – reflects the interaction between academia, the private and the public sector.
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.