Transcript Reflections on the Impact of STI Policy Research-lessons fro

Reflections on the Impact of STI Policy
Research – some lessons from Australia
Ron Johnston
Executive Director, Australian Centre for Innovation &
Visiting Fellow, ARC Systems Research
Vienna, 24 September 2008
AUSTR(AL)IA
Kangaroo on walkabout in Austria
Police in Austria were pressed into action to help
capture a kangaroo that went walkabout after
jumping out of its enclosure near the town of St
Veit.
Basic comparative data for Austria
and Australia
Austria
Australia
GDP €B
300
700
Population M
8.2
20.7
Area K SqKm
84
7700
Population Growth
%
0.5
1.4
Exports €B
130
132
Industrial
Structure
S68/P2/I30
S71/P12/I16
Comparative STI Data I
Austria
Australia
OECD
Investment in knowledge
%GDP
3.5
4.0
4.8
Investment in mach/eqpt
%GDP
8.0
8.0
7.0
R&D Intensity
2.4
1.7
2.2
Bus R&D Intensity
2.4
1.3
2.2
47
28
Share of Services BERD % ? (EU -15)
Health R&D %GDP
0.04
0.1
0.13
Doctoral Graduation
% of age cohort
2.1
1.7
1.3
HRST % empl
31(48)
38 (59F)
Australia - some key structural features - 6
Australian Centre for Innovation & International Competitiveness
Australia - some key structural features -7
Australian Centre for Innovation & International Competitiveness
Australian Research Funding and
Performance System - II
Mechanisms of Government
Research Funding
Business
• Tax concession
• Other Innovation Support (Commercial
Ready)
($M)
766
460
GRAs
• CSIRO
• DSTO
• Other
676
394
487
Universities
• Performance-based block funding
• ARC
• NHMRC
• CRC
1282
605
623
183
Major Steering Mechanisms in a
Pluralistic System
• National priorities – environment and sustainability, health,
security and frontier technologies, shaping all R&D funding and
performing programs
• The Backing Australia’s Ability program providing an additional
investment of € 31b over the 10 years to 2010, supporting
research, commercialisation and skill development
• High-level advice through PMSIEC
• Coordination of Ministries through the CCST
• The Cooperative Research Centre Program which requires an
equal input from industry to focus R&D on progress towards
utilisation and commercialisation. There are currently 56 CRCs
• The Government Research Agencies (GRAs)
Source: Keenan/PREST
Government Research Agencies (PROs)
• CSIRO – broad remit to support industry, economy,
environment and society - annual budget €600M
• Defence S&T Orgn - €250M
• ANSTO – nuclear research and science, €100M
• Geosciences Australia - €85M
• Antarctic Division - €60M
• Broadly responsible to relevant Minister and
accountable for budget through Senate Estimates
Committee
• Triennial funding
• Autonomous in strategy, programs and management
GRAs – an illustration of their operation
• CSIRO developed a National Flagship Program to be
funded from their own budget + industry
collaborators/investors
• Flagships - energy, food, light metals, preventative
health, water, oceans, climate change
• Outcome-oriented – detailed R&D and pathway to
market strategy and planning
• Budget – grew with Govt support to a minimum
€10M/Flagship/year
• University researchers invited to be involved
through a collaboration fund
Lessons from STI Policy Research
1. The characteristics of STI policy and
the influence of STI research have
been essentially determined by the
prevailing policy/political perspective.
2. Lessons from STI policy and
mechanisms that have (and haven’t)
worked.
3. Towards a more strategic positioning
of STI research
What is EBPM?
An approach that helps people make
well-informed decisions about
policies, programmes and projects by
putting the best available evidence
from research at the heart of policy
development and implementation
(CERI/OECD, 2004)
But we are faced with different
types of problems
 Type 1 – responsibility for solving a
problem rests solely with government
 Type 2 – responsibility for solving a
problem rests with both the government
and the governed
 Type 3 – no feasible solution to a problem
exists, so government and governed must
work together to deal with a situation that
neither can change, at least in the short
term
Key Issues – I
The Nature of Policy-Making
 The Interface of Policy-making with
Politics
 Power/Influence versus Rationality
 The Power of Myths
Key Issues – I
The Nature of Policy-Making
 The Interface of Policy-making with
Politics
 Power/Influence versus Rationality
 The Power of Myths
Four Periods of STI Research
1.
2.
3.
4.
The ‘Humboldtian’ Era (cf Ben Martin)
The Keynesian Era
The neo-liberal era
An Emerging New Era?
The Keynesian Era – 1945-75
Vannevar Bush model – autonomous,
well-funded research; scientists in charge
STI Research Focus





Size of GERD
Peer review
Coordination and concentration
Priority-setting
Contribution of research to the economy
The Neo-Liberal Era – 1975-20??
‘New public management’ model –
principal-agent theory, moral hazard
STI Research Focus






Delegation
Evaluation
Technological Innovation
Commercialisation
New ventures/venture capital
Industrial clusters
An Emerging New Era – 20??“Good Governance” model – strategic, outcome-
focused, ‘joined up’, inclusive, horizontal
management of interdependencies, adaptive policymaking
STI Research Focus?





Productivity of R&D and knowledge
Capturing IP
Systems theory-based approaches
Priority-setting
Generation of broad, flexible knowledge platforms
Lessons from STI policy and
mechanisms - Wentworth Group’ – Australia
Key Determinants of STI Policy
Influence
- clear, simple language – no qualifiers
- focus on solutions, not problems
- work within existing political
framework
- work across existing structures and
institutions
Lessons from STI policy and
mechanisms - II
ENSO Forecasting Centers – Pacific & Africa
Key Determinants of STI Policy Influence
-
Convening
Translating
Collaborating
Mediating
(Cash, Borck and Pratt, ‘Countering the Loading-Dock
Approach to Science and Decision-Making’)
Towards a more Strategic Positioning of STI
Research
1. More explicit and committed
engagement with policy-makers
2. Mechanisms to more purposively
shape agenda-setting and the
language of debate on key public
issues
3. Developing a well-managed ‘STI
Collaboration’ database on STI
policy interventions and their
effectiveness
The Recent Review of the
Australian Innovation System
http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovationreview
Recent Review of NIS
1. The Context
- change of Govt after 11 years
- a series of reviews of education, universities,
industrial relations, the federal system of government,
the tax system, emissions trading, the auto and TCF
industries, and the CRC program
- declining investment and performance, particularly in
the past 5 years:
 A decline by 25% of Govt funding for R&I as % of GDP
 Investment in education declined as a % of GDP while other
OECD countries were massively increasing theirs
 A zero increase in multi-factor productivity
2. Not a system review – no assessment of
performance beyond these broad parameters
The Review’s Perspective on
Innovation
• Innovation is commonly described as “creating
value by doing things differently””. From this
viewpoint we can only identify innovation after
the event.
• If we are going to influence innovation outcomes
we need an active appreciation of the dynamic
processes associated with innovation that lead
to change. Thus the focus should be on
innovating and being innovative.
Areas of Focus
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Innovation in business
People and skills (HR)
National research excellence
Information and market design (IP, information
systems, creative industries)
Tax
Market facing programs
Innovation in government
National priorities for innovation
Governance of the innovation system
Major Recommendations (72 in all)
• Make innovation central to all policy and programs
• Foster business innovation
• Restore Govt funding for S&I to 0.75% of GDP (1993
level)
• Transform the R&D tax concession into a tax credit
• Restore full funding for University research
• Drive innovation within government through an Advocate
for Government Innovation
• Establish a system of national innovation priorities
• Governance through a National Innovation Council
Source: Foresight Nanotech Institute