Policies for new path development: the case of Oxfordshire

This chapter reflects on how evolutionary economic geography (EEG) can be extended to incorporate public policy in its explanations of path development. A weakness of EEG is the poor conceptualisation of the role of the state (central, regional, local) in regional path development. It is therefore argued that a multi-scalar perspective of policy is required and that a large set of policies deserve attention. Oxfordshire in the UK is used to explore the link between public policy and path development

Methodologies for the evaluation of regional innovation potential

This contribution is based on a SPRINT-EIMS project involving a ''horizontal'' inventory and critical analysis of existing studies on the measurement and evaluation of regional technological innovative potential.(1) After the presentation of a conceptual scheme aiming at reflecting on the functioning of a ''Regional System of Innovation'', the main trends in methodological approaches to the evaluation of regional innovative potential in the European Union are discussed, pointing to the necessity of moving progressively towards a methodology taking into account interactions, both locally and externally, between the various components and actors of the innovation process. There is no single best-practice methodology in this respect: the use of an ''eclectic'' assortment of methodological approaches is investigated and the recommendation given to develop data bases on innovation at regional level

Comparison of innovation policies in selected European, Asian and Pacific Rim countries: how best to optimise innovation governance in New Zealand?

The technology users’ innovation (TUI) research programme aims to identify the conditions under which socio-technical networks best foster technology development, adoption and commercialisation, and thereby contribute to improved innovation outcomes and innovation governance in New Zealand. The main research objective of this report was to compare innovation policy across selected European and Pacific Rim countries in order to assess how best to optimise innovation policy in New Zealand. Two assessments of National Systems of Innovation (NIS) policies settings were made, each using a different framework of analysis for the selected case study countries (20 and 21 cases respectively). The sample included selected European and Asian countries, Australia and New Zealand. From the European experts assessments, results from comparing New Zealand with the European Innovation Leaders shows that there is potential to improve NIS in New Zealand by giving attention to: • Innovation policy strategic intelligence: strategic exercises, advisory bodies, foresights, evaluations, peer reviews, benchmarking, NIS studies capacity building within agencies in charge of policy design and implementation. • Public private partnerships and knowledge transfer: via competence centres and joint public-private organisation oriented towards innovation, clusters, networks and poles with businesses as main drivers the provision of science parks and incubators providing knowledge transfer incentives such as science-industry bridging organisations, university transfer offices, cooperative programmes, funding schemes, and research commercialisation schemes. Private R&D innovation: direct and indirect support for private R&D via subsidies, loans and tax incentives subsidies and vouchers, advisory services and management support for innovation adaptation of curricula and training programmes to further innovation, and financial and non-financial support for human resources for innovation companies demand stimulation policies, such as innovative public procurement and lead market initiatives. Entrepreneurship and new firm creation spin offs and start up programmes including finance, infrastructure, advisory schemes, brokerage services, business plans, competitions to support new technology based firms (NTBFs), entrepreneurship training such as courses and initiatives in basic or continuing education to enhance entrepreneurial spirit and facilitate innovation company formation risk and venture capital to include guarantee mechanisms, co-funding of venture capital companies and business angel networks. From the New Zealand expert assessments, results from comparing New Zealand with the European Innovation Leaders shows that there is potential to improve NIS in New Zealand by: Improving high-level horizontal agency framework, that is, the NIS provides a strong unifying approach that supports policy guided by government’s strategic plan for the nation. Implementing a tangible commitment to horizontal coherence so that NIS policies are complementary. • Establishing a clear national vision for innovation. • Implementing and developing the proposed changes in governance to achieve: improved vertical coherence so that NIS policies are implemented in the way they are intended, and improved stakeholder and business involvement in policy making and priority setting. From the two assessments made, Finland and Denmark are consistently seen as Innovation Leaders and there is a need to consider their innovation policy settings as potentially relevant to New Zealand.Funding for the research reported here was provided by the New Zealand Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, under contract number LINX 0801