Priority Setting for Public
Research: Challenges and
Opportunities
Fagerberg Committee- Norwary
Friday 5 November 2010
Outline
•
•
•
•
Recent trends
Definitions and Rationales
Mechanisms and instruments
Challenges and opportunities
Recent trends: Most countries have
increased public R&D budgets between
2004-2009
(avg. annual growth)
Recent trends (2) : Stimulus package measures
relating to innovation and long-term growth
Improving the infrastructure (e.g. roads, transport,
ICT)
Support for science, R&D and innovation
Investment in human capital, education and training
(including schools, teachers)
Promoting investment in and uptake of «green»
technologies and innovations to foster energy
efficiency
Support for innovation and entrepreneurship (incl.
support for SMEs, venture capital)
Recent trends in STI priorities: Environment,
energy, health
Strategic STI policy priority areas
National
security
Austria
Belgium (Flanders)
Belgium (Wallonia)
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Slovenia
Spain
South Africa
Sweden
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Environment, Natural
climate
resources
change and
and
oceans
energy
Food
security
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Social
Health &
New
challenges
Engineering
related life
materials/
(incl. pension, and advanced
sciences
technologies
transport,
manufacturin
(incl.
(incl.
urbanisation,
g
biotech.)
nanotech.)
housing)
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Others 1
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
ICT
Regional
Children,
influence,
education
tourism and
and creativity
culture
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Definitions and Rationalities
• Priority setting = selection of certain activities at the
expense of others with an impact on the allocation of
public resources
• Rationales:
– Primacy of Economic Efficiency Arguments
•
Instrumental rationality
• Long term view
• Stronger basis for accountability
• Thematic areas where excellence can be built
• Political Rationality or Narratives
• Public research contribute to economic and social goals
• Governance of STI
• Whole of government approach
• Stakeholder involvement
Types of Priorities
•
Several classifications of types of priorities, among them the
following two types:
– Thematic Priorities: scientific fields; technoscience / technologies; sectors;
issues; etc.
– Structural Priorities: broadly, various innovation-related measures; more
specifically, these might be concerned with research, teaching, firms, regulation,
financing, networking and community-building, etc.
•
Priorities are set at different levels:
–
–
–
policy (government),
strategic (research funding agencies),
operational (research-performing institutes), i.e. the function of
formulating and implementing S&T priorities (highly decentralised).
Priority setting in an age of globalisation
• Drivers for priority setting:
– Open innovation, internationalisation of S&T, and increased
international competition
– Emergence of societal issues
– ‘Global’ challenges (including sustainable development, climate
change, alternative sources of energy, water supply, etc.) –
requiring international collective action (and related governance
frameworks)
• Thematic priorities are increasingly shaped by
– international agendas
– economic rationales concerning international competitiveness
(which tended to lead to much emulation / convergence in
priorities rather than niche strategies)
– Scientific excellence and critical mass
• Issues: around governance; interface / interactions
between foreign / supranational and national priorities
Mechanisms of priority setting
• Over time, a number of mechanisms have been applied
in priority setting:
– Technology planning and forecasting (1960/70s)
– Technology foresight and roadmapping (1980/90s)
– Priority setting and strategic policy intelligence (foresight,
monitoring, evaluation, assessment, etc.)
• Trend toward:
– expertise-based consultation mechanisms
– programmes (as distinguished from institutions) as vehicle of
priority setting
– increased decentralisation – as innovation systems have become
more complex, a larger number of actors have built related
capacities and been given responsibilities. However, the degree
of (de)centralisation varies widely across countries
Interest in priority setting tools
•
•
Priority setting and related instruments, inducing strong
demand for improved methodologies and international
learning on best practices.
Some examples
– Austria – National dialogue combined with international peer
review and assessment that identified gaps. Creation of working
groups and identification of goals. Political will to develop a vision
for 2020.
– Chile – developed more “selective” policies through its clusters
initiative.
– Denmark – RESEARCH2015 aims to improve the basis for
prioritisation of public funds for strategic research.
– Germany – priority setting is highly decentralized but also
involves strong dialogue between the government and the
scientific community represented in research funding bodies and
the publicly funded research performing institutions……..
Balancing “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches
• Top-down and bottom-up are not mutually exclusive, but
an appropriate balance between them is required
• Government / the top-down approach plays a role in
– identifying ‘public interest’ areas as well as related potentials
– formulating appropriate policy responses
– promoting emerging areas (lacking vested interests), long-term
ventures, multidisciplinarity, societal goals
– forming and stabilising expectations
• Bottom-up approaches
– Elicit / gather / aggregate information
– Express needs of stakeholders / “society”
Some governance / stakeholder issues
• Multiplicity of actors in priority setting
–
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
•
Central ministries to funding agencies/PROs
Public / private / non-profit funders
Central versus regional governments
Research Councils / Funding Agencies
Research performers
Communication among stakeholders
Balancing functional / thematic priorities
Accountability and co-ordination
Direct vs. indirect channels of influence
Limits to democratisation vs risk of technocratization –
priority setting that escapes democratic processes
Challenges in priority setting (1)
• Underlying rationales for priority setting of public research
– Beyond economic efficiency
– Need for understanding role of public research and relation to
growth
• Balancing curiosity-driven vs. goal oriented research
• Governance and involvement of stakeholders
– Need for coherence in priority setting – but also need for taking into
account the views and interests of different stakeholder groups
• Linking priorities to outcomes and impacts
– Links between funding and outcomes / impacts
– Which criteria for priority setting and which tools?
Challenges in Priority Setting (2)
• National versus sectoral priorities
• Strategic intelligence
– Tension between need to know more for sensible PS <-> inherent
limits to what one can know about future technological
development
• Priorities in an international context
Opportunities for Priority Setting
• Agenda setting for the future
– Process for bring codified and distributed knowledge
– Balance short-term and long-term concerns
• Fostering synergies and economies of scope
– Not only scale but scope
• Fighting against institutional inertia
– Improving adaptability
• Building a broad-based and popular support for S&T
• Policy learning
– Identifying key drivers of change and opportunities
Thank you for your attention
Mario.cervantes@oecd.org
Michael.Keenan@oecd.org
Web Resou
www.oecd.org/sti/innovation