Search

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This study challenges existing literature which maintains that technology latecomers usually depend on imported technologies to develop emerging high-tech sectors. This paper argues that the domestic institutional environment in facilitating networking might be more important for developing academia-industry ( A- I) networks. The co-evolution of institutions and the knowledge transfer process in the Taiwanese Biopharmaceutical Innovation System ( TBPIS) is a case in point. Far from relying purely on foreign technologies, several important institutional and policy changes, which transform the institutional environment from prohibiting A- I intertwining into encouraging A- I collaborations, have enabled domestic research institutes to influence the acquisition, creation, and diffusion of knowledge in the innovation network. Nonetheless, the country continues to struggle in commercializing domestic scientific research to step into a knowledge-based economy. Therefore, this paper suggests that more productive strategies would be helpful to advance domestic academic research, sustain A- I networks, and strengthen the innovation system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper reports on a multistakeholder engagement process conducted in an Australian policy setting that led to a new community engagement framework: Science and Technology Engagement Pathways ( STEP). I describe the process in the context of a lack of awareness, experience, and culture of deliberative public engagement in Australia, particularly in relation to decision making concerning science, technology, and innovation. Increasing cautiousness in government and industry approaches to nanotechnology development, in Australia and elsewhere, creates an imperative and an opening for improved stakeholder and community engagement to improve the legitimacy and sustainability of decisions. In this context, STEP may stimulate movement toward deliberative engagement by raising awareness and commitment from diverse stakeholders and providing a structure for developments in engagement and public dialog. STEP potentially provides 'rules of engagement' and 'intervention pathways' for ongoing public engagement with science and technology developments and for critical 'science in society' perspectives to inform policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Collaborations between and within sectors are common and crucial to the creation and transfer of knowledge. It is often unclear who is involved in the collaboration, and with whom and why they are collaborating. I studied reasons for collaboration and how capital and institutions affect collaboration through a mixed methods analysis of infection and immunity research and development collaborations in Vancouver, Canada between individuals affiliated with universities, firms, and health-care organizations. I found that both capital and institutions were important in collaboration decisions. Collaboration worked as a balancing act between capital and institutions. Potential collaborators needed to offer different capital to the collaboration while supporting the dominant institutions of potential collaborators. Participants' organizational and sectoral affiliations influenced available capital and dominant institutions. These findings help policy makers understand collaboration dynamics between sectors and how translation can occur between universities, firms, and health-care organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

A seeming paradox of globalization is that while innovation and the industries and institutions that support it transcend local and national boundaries, high-tech innovative activity continues to agglomerate in a select number of high-capacity regions. Research, however, suggests that innovative regions must—through collaborative activity and related networks—both economize regional capacities while remaining open to global knowledge and finance. Collaboration and network formation are viewed as critical in this regard, as the competitive pressures of globalization are forcing firms to adopt collaborative and open innovation practices: forging relationships with external partners. Two important sources of knowledge and finance are regionally concentrated venture capital firms and large corporations, often globe-straddling multinational enterprises. While collaboration occurs between these two actors, an understanding of the processes and implications has only begun to emerge. Focusing on collaborative venture capital activity in London and the South East, this exploratory paper presents a preliminary understanding as to the role that this particular collaborative activity plays in the pursuit of complementary, extra-regional knowledge and expertise, and the extent to which this collaboration is recharacterizing the shape of regionally based venture capital networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Review of Policy Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Explanations for national success in science and technology typically focus on domestic institutions and policies. However, that line of research has yet to identify any particular set of institutions or policies that explain variation in national innovation rates across cases or over time. This article offers new evidence that the problem with domestic institutions approaches stems from their failure to consider international security factors. Specifically, this article finds a positive effect for U.S. security alliances on innovation. This finding is robust across different specifications and periods of analysis. While countries that ally militarily with the United States are found to realize benefits in economy-wide, indigenous innovation, such an effect is not observed in military technologies. This suggests that alliances may substitute for being on the frontier in military technologies. Therefore, this article contributes not just to debates over S&T competitiveness, but also to alliance formation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

National statistical systems are enterprises tasked with collecting, validating, and reporting societal attributes. These data serve many purposes--they allow governments to improve services, economic actors to traverse markets, and academics to assess social theories. National statistical systems vary in quality, especially in developing countries. This study examines determinants of national statistical capacity in developing countries, focusing on the impact of technological attainment. Just as technological progress helps to explain differences in economic growth, we argue that states with greater technological attainment have greater capacity for gathering and processing quality data. Analysis using panel methods shows a strong, statistically significant positive linear relationship between technological attainment and national statistical capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American states are engaged in a variety of policy efforts to mitigate climate change and alter energy usage. While a number of studies have considered the reasons for adoption of renewable energy and climate change policies, they typically consider only one policy in isolation. This study examines policy adoption of 14 energy and climate change programs in a pooled event history analysis. Our primary research questions consider average effects of horizontal policy diffusion, while also identifying factors that vary across policy type. We offer a method of testing whether predictors vary across policies and use this test to incorporate interactions by policy in the statistical analysis. Our results indicate that many of the primary drivers of adoption are political in nature, including state ideology, environmental interest group membership, and diffusion via ideologically similar neighbors. In addition, we find that given policy heterogeneity, a number of determinants vary by policy type, though differences are in magnitude rather than direction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How individuals respond to innovative technologies depends on how motivated they are by an array of internal and external factors and the informational and cost barriers they face. To better understand technology adoption decision making we (i) assess changes in intent to purchase plug-in vehicles in response to reductions in their price and (ii) identify motivators that incline new car buyers toward plug-ins under status quo and reduced vehicle cost scenarios. We find that individuals already inclined toward alternative vehicles have a higher interest in plug-ins under a reduced-cost scenario than individuals who favor conventional vehicles. We also find that individuals who shift their vehicle preference from conventional gasoline to plug-in vehicles are motivated by material factors and fears relating to the innovative technology, whereas those shifting preferences between less to more innovative technologies are likely to be motivated by a mix of material and nonmaterial factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Technological innovations are by no means Pareto-improving. I build on the argument that incumbent innovators can use political means to block rival innovations by emphasizing that the competitiveness of political system and some political institutions may diminish their ability to do so. I specify an institutional mechanism of agenda power, which provides newcomers with an improved ability to enter the game. The number of agenda power holders varies significantly among political systems, electoral systems, and administrative structures. With a sample of about 100 countries and across 20 years I show that politically competitive regimes, majoritarian electoral rules, and federal structures supply more holders of agenda power in comparison to their counterparts and, other things being equal, produce more innovations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores the transitional processes of Taiwan's innovation system over the past half century, evolving from being rooted in traditional industries to attaining development in a virtuous cycle of development. Our approach is inspired by the Arena of Development theory and acknowledges the system of transformation failures, in which we highlighted the types of failures that might impede economic progress and how they were overcome in the evolutionary targeting of Taiwan's industrial development. Our findings demonstrate that the success of Taiwan's economic transition is targeted on, and evolves with, a series of macrolevel policies in the early phase of development; mesolevel institutional mechanisms to attain the industrial emergence settings; and, in pursuit of the virtuous cycle of development, the microlevel collaboration platform. We attribute the success of Taiwan's industrial system to this series of systematic government interventions. This study provides novel and salient normative principles that guide transformational policymakers in governing transitional processes of innovation system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyzes the influence of universities on Italian firms' probability to innovate. Using firm-level data, we focus on institutionalized technology transfer (TT) activities in universities, namely spin-offs, patents, and research contracts. Results show that TT activities play a significant role in the probability to innovate by Italian manufacturing firms located in the same province as the university. Nevertheless, the effect is not uniform: the contribution of university TT activities to the probability of firms' innovating is concentrated in certain territorial areas (North-East and Center) and sectors (science based and scale intensive) and among firms that are large. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Globalization has generated increasing interest in technology-intensive industries as a way to sustain national economic competitiveness. High-technology growth is often conceptualized as a 'high road' to prosperity, more amenable to private-public, industry-labor, and interfirm cooperation than tax, regulatory, or cost competitive strategies. While specialization in technology-intensive industries does deliver several benefits, this article uses Finland's successful transformation into a high-technology economy to highlight the significant economic and political risks associated with this strategy. Economically, movement into electronics exposed Finland to cost competition and disruptive technological innovations. Politically, high-technology competition weakened the solidaristic ties that characterized postwar capitalism and the coordinating capacities that underpinned economic growth. In short, high-technology growth exacerbated the problems it was supposed to solve. The article concludes by generalizing the argument to several non-Nordic states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented to the special issue of the scholarly periodical "Review of Policy Research" on the topic of cooperation in public policy, including discussions of public sector cooperation, research cooperation in Taiwan, and international scientific collaboration.

The literature on government responsiveness to societal issues is extensive but provides a mixed assessment of effectiveness. We examine this issue in the case of policy addressing effective and safe management of research and development in the emerging field of nanotechnology. Specifically, we examine the agenda setting effects of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (the Act), a piece of legislation designed to be implemented by a network of actors in the nanotechnology research and development policy subsystem. We adopt a public values lens from Congress, an agency, and federal funding recipients are examined. Findings suggest a narrowing of public values discourse around more specific societal concerns in the documents crafted after the Act was passed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discussed why specific efforts aimed at establishing direct relationships between social inclusion problems and research and innovation projects are needed, what are the main difficulties to achieve this objective, and how these difficulties can be addressed. This focus came from the successive calls of a program called 'Research and Innovation Oriented to Social Inclusion,' implemented by the Research Council of the Universidad de la República, Uruguay. A critical appraisal of this experience and the main lessons learned were presented through the lens of an analytical tool: a circuit in which different types of actors interact while traveling along it. The point of departure of the circuit was the recognition that a problem that hampers social inclusion exists; the end of the circuit is reached if an effective solution for that problem is achieved. Some examples from actual research projects were included to illustrate the functioning of the circuit. The article analyzed with some detail the possible short circuits that may occur at each stage of the circuit and what their causes might be. It analyzed as well the transformations undergone by the 'Research and Innovation Oriented to Social Inclusion' program and its attempts to avoid the short circuits, evolving in that way toward a more hands-on strategy to link research and societal needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nanoscience and nanotechnology--involving the engineering of materials, devices, and systems at very small scales--have emerged as important priorities not only for science but also for economic development. In this article, we propose an analytical framework that considers the socioeconomic effects of nanotechnology in six key areas: institutional development, knowledge flows, and network efficiency; research and education capabilities; industrial and enterprise development; regional spread; cluster and network development; and product innovation. We apply this framework to assess the early impacts of the evolving domain of nanotechnology for development, with a focus on China and its transitioning economy, where nanotechnology is assuming an important role in breaking existing innovation system lock-ins and historical path dependencies. We suggest that the analytical framework adds value in assessing the developmental impacts of new technologies and could be used to probe such impacts in other countries and locations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of markets for the poorest populations ( Base of the Pyramid [ BOP]) has become important for multinational companies ( MNCs), nongovernmental organizations, and public policies. Assuming that there is demand for very low price consumer products and that the main problem is one of access to those products, the challenge for MNCs is to reconfigure the whole of the corporate process accordingly. The article follows BOP theory and companies' actual innovation. It looks at the definitions of the BOP market, the representation of BOP consumers, and local heterogeneous configurations of actors. Based on fieldwork with an MNC (specializing in electrical equipment) investigating a BOP business, it investigates the work undertaken by managers to build this market innovation. It explores the paradoxical frontiers of consumption and aid to the poorest populations and feeds the reflexion of BOP policies by opening it up toward a diversity of alternatives and possible configurations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Innovation intermediary organizations ( IIOs) may build bridges between the demand and supply of knowledge. The understanding concerning the scope and functions of these intermediaries in the case of the agricultural sector is scarce, particularly for developing countries. The aim of this article is to discuss the functions played by IIOs operating in the segment of small farmers in the agricultural sector in the context of a developing country. The analysis allows extracting policy implications having in mind small farmers with different economic conditions and levels of innovativeness. This article uses a case study methodology. The main sources of information are interviews with members of the board and staff of the Produce Foundation, responsible for managing public resources to promote innovation processes in the agriculture sector in a specific state, Chiapas, as well as with farmers, technological suppliers, and researchers in this state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Science and technology policy initiatives in the early 1980s have focused in both the United States and Western Europe on improving capacity to apply a good science base in practice, expecting increases in technological advancement, improved market presence and enhanced economic growth. Results varied broadly in the United States and Europe. Even more puzzling, Japan charged ahead in technological advancement without that strong of a science base of its own. Some industrialized economies do not conform to the expected science–technology relationship, whereby strong performance in science shall lead to strong technological performance. The puzzling science–technology relationship in advanced countries has plausible explanations. (1) Science–technology relationship is much interdependent or symbiotic. Its strength and primary direction at a given time varies largely by field of science or technological innovation and across long periods of time. (2) Science–technology link in a country may depend on the overall scientific and technological level of development in that country. The strength and interdependent nature of this link evolves historically and varies across fields of science and technology. The strength of the link is affected by scientific and technological specialization in a country. Different technological fields have different scientific intensities, or degrees of building upon the science base. (3) Specialization of countries across scientific and technological fields varies. Hence, the strength of science–technology link differs between countries. High technological specialization of a country may impact its technological performance more than its immediately current scientific performance does. History, tradition and knowledge transfers may affect more returns on R&D expenditures than the actual value of R&D funds spent in science or technology. Explanations of puzzling behavior of science–technology link may become policy recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the last three decades research across the social sciences has made great advances in the political economy of technological change. Nonetheless, many of these insights are solely tied to national, sometimes regional, explanations of industrial R&D and innovation rates. Meanwhile, the impacts of the international system, and of the actions of individual countries, on technological changes across many countries, are increasingly more pronounced. It is therefore imperative that we expand our theoretical conceptualizations. For these reasons we have gathered, in this special issue, economists, political scientists, geographers, and sociologists to explore in a comparative way what we view as some of the critical areas for research at two different level of analysis—business and nations. This introduction will outline their major research themes and provide a brief history of the debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is currently a fundamental transformation of services, a transformation central to the growth of productivity and competition in the global economy. This transformation, a response to commodification generated by decomposition of production and intensified competition in global markets, is driven by developments in IT tools, the uses they are being put to, and the networks they run on. The service transformation is changing how firms add value, affecting the underlying economic activity in countries around the world. This article introduces the notion of the services transformation, placing it in the historical context of production and competition, noting the advent of the Internet as a critical building block. Second, we consider national strategies for capturing value in this new era. The experiences of Japan and Korea, successful in deploying high-speed IT networks, but facing unexpected challenges in using them to capture value, highlight several features of the services transformation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article develops an empirical measure of public entrepreneurship and uses it to discover the correlates that distinguish between those participants in a policy domain who are seen as more or less important in the entrepreneurial process. Looking at two rural regions dealing with telemedicine technologies, the authors examine the role of personal attributes and situational attributes in predicting who will emerge as the most mentioned public entrepreneurs on these issues in their community. Status in the local community, membership in the health professions, and strong local focus and ties are the most instrumental variables in distinguishing between those in a policy domain who are more likely to be identified as entrepreneurial. The authors provide an empirical test that can, for the first time, identify in a comparative context the traits that distinguish more entrepreneurial individuals from less entrepreneurial ones (or nonentrepreneurial ones) participating in the same policy domain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]