The periphery paradox in innovation policy: Latin America and Eastern Europe Compared

In this paper we are interested in analyzing the dynamics of the innovation policy in non-frontier countries, and their relationship with structural change and development.

Coordination of innovation policy in the catching-up context: Estonia and Brazil compared

This paper proposes an analytical framework for analysing innovation policies in catching-up economies. The framework combines two dynamic trajectories that affect innovation policy . policy content and policy governance context . and builds an approach that looks at innovation policy governance through a multi-level concept of policy coordination. The paper argues that for understanding and analysing innovation-policy governance systems, the comprehension of the developments in the field of public-administration-and-management research and practice is as necessary as understanding developments in the field of innovation policy research and practice because the developments in the former partly condition what are the feasible models for increasing the effectiveness of innovation-policy governance. The paper applies the framework to two stylised case studies . Estonia and Brazil . and shows that the framework is useful for revealing the complexities of innovation-policy governance that are overlooked in narrow innovation policy analysis and shows that innovationpolicy governance challenges may be more complex than usually presumed.

The Copying Paradox: Why Converging Policies but Diverging Capacities in Eastern European Innovation Systems?

This paper analyzes the development of Eastern European innovation systems since the 1990s by looking at the theoretical and empirical accounts of two discourses that have had a significant impact on the development of innovation systems: innovation policy and public administration and management. We propose a framework for analyzing the development of innovation policies by distinguishing between two concepts – policy and administrative capacity – that are necessary for innovation policy making and implementation. Using the framework we show how the Eastern European innovation systems have because of past legacies and international policy transfers developed a highly specific understanding of innovation policy based on the initial impact of the Washington Consensus policies and later the European Union. We argue that because of the interplay between the principles and policy recommendations of the two international discourses we can see the emergence of a “copying paradox” in Eastern European innovation systems: that is, despite the perception of policy convergence, we can witness a divergence in the policy from the intended results, and as a result can talk about limited and de-contextualized policymaking capacities.- administrative capacity, catch-up, innovation policy, Eastern Europe

The Copying Paradox: Why Converging Policies but Diverging Capacities for Development in Eastern European Innovation Systems?

This paper analyses the development of Eastern European innovation systems since the 1990s by looking together at the theoretical and empirical accounts of two discourses that have had a siginificant impact on the development of innovation systems: innovation policy and public administration and management. We propose a framework for analysing the development of innovation policies distinguishing between two concepts - policy and administrative capacity . that are necessary for innovation policy making and implementation. Using the framework we show how the Eastern European innovation systems have, because of past legacies and international policy transfer, developed a highly specific understanding of innovation policy based on the initial impact of the Washington Consensus policies and later the European Union. We argue that because of the interplay between the principles and policy reccomendations of the two international discourses we can see the emergence of a .copying paradoxÿ in Eastern European innovation systems: that is, despite the perception of policy convergence, we can witness a divergence in the policy from the intended results, and as a result can talk about limited and de-contextualised policy-making capacities.

Is 'Open Innovation' Re-Inventing Innovation Policy for Catching-up Economies?

This paper discusses the current state of the .open innovationÿ thinking in the context of core economic challenges faced by catching-up and developing countries. The main argument of the paper is that due to the paradoxes and contradictions between the .mainstreamÿ innovation discourse and practice and the peculiar challenges of the catching-up countries, applying the concept of .open innovationÿ may have unintended or reverse effects on catching-up development. This problem can be remedied by more conscious attention to the basic contradictions and paradoxes that requires a more comprehensive analytical focus on innovation and technological development at the levels of firm, industry and policy.

Public procurement as an industrial policy tool an option for developing countries?

So far, only 40 countries have joined WTOÿs Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), from the developing world only some East Asian (Hong Kong [China], South Korea, Singapore) economies and ten Eastern European countries are parties to the agreement. This article sets out to answer two interrelated questions: is it advisable for developing countries to use public procurement efforts for development, and should more developing countries join the GPA? We survey key arguments for and against joining the GPA, and by adopting the framework of public procurement for innovation, we argue that government procurement should not be seen only as an indirect support measure for development, but also as a direct vehicle for promoting innovation and industries and, thus, growth and development. We also show that using public procurement for development assumes high levels of policy capacity, which most developing countries lack. In addition, we show how the GPA as well as other WTO agreements make it complicated for the developing countries to benefit from public procurement for innovation. As a result, the article suggests that the developing countries could apply a mix of direct and indirect (so-called soft) publicprocurement- for-innovation measures. In order to do this, developing countries need to develop the policy capacity to take advantage of the complex and multi-layered industrial policy space still available under WTO rules.

Modernizing Russia: Round III. Russia and the other BRIC countries: forging ahead, catching up or falling behind?

The term 'BRIC countries' - Brazil, Russia, India, and China - traces its roots to investment banking, Goldman Sachs coined the term in 2001. The idea of large emerging economies catching up with, and challenging, the West has captured social scientists and policy-makers alike. However, the sheer size and different historical legacies dictate that there are enormous differences between the BRIC economies. Russiaÿs situation is in three ways unique among the BRIC countries. First, Russia was an industrialized nation long before the others, secondly, it experienced unprecedented economic decline in the 1990s and by 2008 Russia barely reached the GDP level of 1989; thirdly, unlike Brazil, China, India and in fact most of the developing world, Russia is not a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). These unique features beg the following questions that this document seeks to (at least tentatively) answer: first, what is the structural legacy of the decline in the 1990s in terms of technological and industrial capabilities in Russia; and second, what can and should Russia learn from the WTO experience of the rest of the BRIC economies until today. We argue, in brief, that while the decline of the 1990s is relatively well-known and documented on the macro-level (GDP) and more controversially in some of its micro-level and sociological impacts, there seems to be little awareness of the magnitude of devastation that took place during this period within Russiaÿs industry. Along with a massive increase in income from natural resources, a partial disintegration of the R&D system, and a greatly diminished policy capacity, the structural changes of the 1990s continue to pose grave challenges to Russiaÿs economic policy making. In fact, in many areas Russiaÿs technological and industrial capabilities have simply been lost.

European Eastern Enlargement as Europe's Attempted Economic Suicide?

We argue that the process of European economic integration has made a qualitative shift: from a Listian symmetrical economic integration to an integrative and asymmetrical integration. This shift started in the early 1990s with the integration of the former Soviet economies into the economies of Europe and the world as a whole, reached its climax with the Eastern enlargement of the Union in 2004, and now forms the foundation of the renewed Lisbon Strategy. This change is measurably threatening European welfare: the economic periphery in the first instance, and potentially the core countries as well. Two parallel processes aggravate this development: the timing of the enlargement at this particular phase of the evolving techno-economic paradigm; and the creation of the European Monetary Union along the so-called Maastricht route towards convergence and fiscal stability.