Policy-making practices and
governance models of
transformative change
Marja-Liisa Niinikoski
Eu-SPRI Conference 2012, June 12-13
Karlsruhe, Germany
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Background of the paper
The focus of analysis and the research question
What is a transformative change?
Theoretical underpinnings: policy and governance
Empirical case study
The analysis framework and the aims of analysis
Preliminary findings
Conclusions
1. Background of the paper
• The changing and expanding nature of innovation policy
in various countries
• Observations about difficulties to ‘implement’ broadened
innovation policy have been increased
• An uninvestigated question:
– how the expansion of innovation policy has increased the
political nature of innovation policy, since it covers wider areas
in society and in the economy, and whether the ‘traditional’
policy-making practices are sufficient in this new policy era to
govern a transformative change
2. The focus of analysis and the research
question
•
One of the key elements, when trying to understand ‘effective’
governance of transformative change, is practices by and through
which the policy is made.
– It sheds light on the issues who are allowed to participate in policy-making,
whose claims are taking seriously having truth-value in policy-making, how the
rules defining the policy discourse are set.
•
•
•
•
The key question, which is discussed and which theoretical foundations
are developed in this paper, concerns the interconnection between
policy-making practices and public governance models.
The basic assumption lies at heart of the interconnection between
policy-making, and public governance of transformative change.
If policy-making practices significantly differ from the means and
practices how collective interest is pursued in order to enable
transformative change, significant inefficiencies in public governance
can be identified.
The study aims to make explicit how actual policy-making practices
open, restrict, or legitimize broadening innovation policy, and thus
creates conditions for governance of transformative change.
3. What is a transformative change?
• The concept of transformative change tries to describe a
‘radical’ change, meaning a change from one form into
another.
– Relates to the question of negotiated aims of policy, problematized
issue in policy (grand challenges, wicked problems)
• From the point of view of the discursive approach applied in
this study a transformation is a new discursive configuration,
where the essential elements, relations, rules, and interdiscursive configurations are established in a new way.
• In the field of innovation policy studies, with the notion of
broadened innovation policy, the question is how
transformative change is governed, and how innovation
policy-making practices reflect the breadth and the depth of
the aspired change.
4. Theoretical underpinnings: policy and
governance
• How to approach theoretically the question under the
investigation
• Policy as discourse highlighting its side of policymaking practices
• Integration of the understanding (actual) policy-making
practices in relation to the theoretical understanding
of different governance models
–  how empirically identified (identifiable) policy-making
practices enable or restrict ‘effective’ governance of
transformative change
4. Theoretical cnt...
• Theoretically speaking four fundamentally different
approaches to public governance can be separated
–
–
–
–
The market efficiency approach
The performance efficiency approach
The stakeholder relations approach
The people’s influence approach
5. Empirical case study
• The broadening phase of Finnish innovation policy (the mid2000s )
• Policy-making example
– Preparing the national innovation strategy 2007-2008, the need
for the national strategy was indicated in the government’s
programme 2007
– Developing user-driven innovation policy and its measures 2009-,
based on the points of view expressed in the national innovation
strategy
– Preparing and implementing the programme ’Innovations in social
and healthcare services 2008—2015’ carried out by Tekes
• Research material: policy documents, interviews,
observations, partial participation
6.1 The analysis framework
Case
The national
innovation
strategy
Innovations in
social and
healthcare
services
2008—2015
User-driven
innovation
policy and its
measures
Policy-making
practices
Policy outputs/
outcomes
Elements of various
governance
approaches
6.2 The aims of analysis
• Identification of policy-making practices
• Elaboration of the identified policy-making practices in
relation to theoretical understanding of governance
models
• The analysis aims to highlight how understanding of
applied and actual policy-making practices can lead to
better understanding of conditions how and why certain
governance models enable or restrict a transformative
change in society and in the economy.
6.3 Preparation of the national innovation strategy:
three main parts (partly independently) + other
practices
Part I: 11 thematic areas (open phase)
• Facilitated process by external consults
Part II: ’proper’/’actual’ innovation strategy
(closed phase)
• Steering group led by Mr. Esko Aho
Part III: processing in the Parliament
6.3 Part I: 11 thematic areas
•
11 themes selected by policy practitioners (the Ministry of Trade and Industry + the
Ministry of Employment, nowadays the MEE)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
•
Growth companies (SMEs and young innovative companies)
IPRs (protecting knowhow)
Innovation activities of industrial clusters
Developing the public sector
Service innovations
Regional innovation policy
Exploiting the global and EU development
Developing working life
Research and education
Demand-driven approaches, market regulation and standardation
Structures, incentives and development of broad-based innovation policy
A) Thematic workshops: spring and autumn 2007
–
–
–
–
–
Preparation of discussion notes between consultants and policy practitioners being responsible
for one thematic area
One workshop per one theme
List of invited peoples, representing private and public sectors, prepared between consults and
policy practitioners
About 20 invited participants per workshop
Results of workshops reported by consults
6.3 Part I cont.
•
B) Open consultation (www.innovaatiostrategia.fi): autumn
2007
–
–
–
The same themes as in the workshops except the last one
The website was open between September 9, 2007 and October
31, 2007
The questions:
•
•
•
•
–
The significance of all themes from the point of view of developing
innovation environment
The current role of all themes from the point of view of innovation
activities and their enhancement
Theme-related significant issues, stregnths, weaknesses
Aims and operations to be taken into account in the preparation of
the innovation strategy 713 responses, 565 answerers
Report prepared by consults
Part I cont.: 565 answerers (open
consultation)
Part I cont.: Selected themes
6.3 Part II: Preparation of the ’proper’ strategy:
the autumns 2007 – the summer 2008
•
Mr. Esko Aho – chairman of the steering group
–
–
•
•
Secretary in the Ministry of Trade and Industry
Members of the steering group
–
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
•
Aho’s approach
Aho’s political background, the President of Sitra (the Finnish Innovation Fund)
Industry representatives: 4 (forest industry, industrial association, ict, manufacturing)
University representatives: 2 (rector, professor)
State administration and public agencies: 5+1 (2 MEE, MINEDU, SOCIAL AND HEALTH CARE,
public agency/Tekes + Sitra)
Others: 2 (venture capitalist, labour union)
Secretary from the MEE
International conference and national seminar with experts in the spring 2008
Hearings of international experts
The proposal (June 2008)
Statements from various ministries about the draft
–
–
All ministries gave their statements about the proposal and almost all ministries required in their
statements that they could participate in the strategy process and its implementation in the next
phase.
The ministries argued that without participation it would be difficult to reconcile their own activities
to the strategy.
6.3 The structure and the content of the
strategy (draft)
Strategy
Operational plan
Change drivers
Innovation activities in the borderless
world
Strategic aims
Innovative individuals and
communities
Basic choices
Demand- and user-driven approach
Implementation: the 10 most
important operational activities
Systemic approach
6.3 Finalizing the strategy
• The final strategy, as expressed in the Communication
of the government on innovation policy, was prepared
between the MEE and the MINEDU
– the aim was to strengthen the aspects of ongoing policy
measures in education and research in the strategy
• The same foundations and basic elements as in the
draft
• Added definitions and the description of the current state
of innovation activities
• Changes in the operational plan (not so precise any
more)
6.3 Part III: Processing in the Parliament:
a written question to the Minister
Member of
Parliament
Concern of
’old’
innovation
policy
September 2007
Minister of
Trade and
industry
Broad-based
approach to
policy
Open and
participatory
preparation
process
6.3 Part III: Processing in the Parliament:
the communication of the government
• More about informing than redefining
• (still has to be analyzed)
6.3 Other policy-making practices to
inluence on specific issues
• Based on the preparation of the national innovation
strategy a group of three men, two State Secretaries
from two ministries, the Ministry of Finance, and the
Ministry of Employment and the Economy, and the
President of Sitra, was established to make a
proposal, on how the governance structure and
practices could be improved.
6.4 Interviews: Observations of the
process
• “I observed that there was a break in the process. I do not
actually know, whether the work done [in the thematic]
groups came at all across to the next level, or it did not match
expectations. In a way there was a break, and it could be
noticed that the issues, which we had discussed in the
groups, were not visible in the next phase. And actually, since
I know the procedure, it happened that we had in a way two
processes. There were very wide working group activities,
which were done, and the discussion was good. [...] But then
another process started which went against the stream. And
then there was a third process, as the proposal was not
accepted, the strategy was written once again.” [A civil
servant, a research institute]
6.4 Interviews cont.: Observations of the
process
• ”The result which came from the preparatory work, it did not really
help in the strategy work, since what should have been done were
technical proposals. We wanted to reach for a strategy through the
main aims which should be achieved through innovation policy and
what kind of basic solutions should be done in order to improve
capacity. [...] In the role of chairman I started to reach for and to
try to find a significant developmental line. The problem in Finnish
administration culture and in the preparation culture of issues
is that people start to define the lowest common denominator, and
various aims are tried to smooth things over, and it is believed that
this is the way to define aims. But we were in a situation where this
was no longer possible, as we had to make choices, and on the
other hand I did not believe in those methods, and when the
starting point was to search for a significant change.”
6.4 Interviews cont.: How defines?
• ”The innovation strategy, which was produced under the
guidance of the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, it
was not balanced with education, research training and
scientific education and traditional technology policy, with
how the situation is now in the Government’s Communication
on Innovation Policy, which was prepared based on the
strategy.” [Civil servant, the Ministry of Education]
• “The innovation strategy, it was prepared quite strongly from
the point of view of innovation policy, not from the point of
view of science policy. And this opened the possibility of
going deeper and to speak out more strongly from the point
of view of the needed renewals in innovation policy.” [Civil
servant, Tekes]
6.4 Interviews cont.: What is broad-based
innovation policy?
• ”In the preparation of the national innovation strategy we
discussed a lot about the issue of what a broad-based
innovation policy could be and the concept of innovation in
general. And it was defined in the strategy as an utilised
competitive advantage either commercially or in another way,
which was an effort to bring a new element into the
innovation policy discourse. It has its own merits and it is
interesting but I think that this still is OECD innovation
policy in the sense that there are as elements education
policy, innovation policy, higher education policy,
science policy. Not in the way that innovation policy could
cover all of them but it is comprised of them. [...] In innovation
policy contributions are needed for these various policy fields.
[Civil servant, The Ministry of Education]
6.4 Interviews cont.: What is broad-based
policy?
• ” In my opinion efficiency and productivity and high
quality are issues, which are the core questions of
innovation policy. In other words a well-functioning
innovation system produces better, more efficient, which
means lower costs, more [...] and quality. [...] Productivity
and quality, they are the two things which are produced.
We labour under the delusion that productivity could
somehow be inhuman and asocial, when the fact it is totally
the opposite. [...] This delusion leads to a situation, that in the
social and health care sector we are afraid of the word
productivity and it is seen that it could lead, from the point of
view of social and equality aims, to an unfavourable outcome,
when actually it is the other way around. People can be
treated justly and fairly only if public resources are used
efficiently.” [Industry representative]
6.4 Interviews cont.: What is broad-based
policy?
•
” We have two clear fronts in innovation policy, which could be drivers of
paradigm or changes. There can be some other things as well but this is one
way to look at it. One, this is our global competition and competitivenesscentred thinking, and in my opinion it is the real and right innovation policy,
and it has pushed through many changes, phenomena and even instruments.
But on the other hand we have this domestic field and in relation to it
innovation policy has become mainstream in Finland, when in this regard
innovation policy was started to be handled as a policy sector, and no longer
like a type of expert-driven occultism, when its relation to regional policy has
been obligated to be renewed to a large extent and now it can be seen that
during the last year broad-based innovation policy has been spoken about,
which has ambitious well considered issues on how in every sector the
possibilities to use innovation policy in them will be deliberated on and what the
field of innovation policy could be there. From the domestic side the
horizontalisation of innovation policy has broken through. [Researcher, a
research organisation]
6.4 Interviews cont.: What is broad-based
innovation policy?
• ” What the sectors, like ours ask, when the tools and
financing possibilities of innovation policy are
introduced to our sector, is whether we bring at the
same time the dominance of business policy to our
sector. [...] I do not wonder at all that most people ask
what we get with financial resources, and whether we
can develop our sector from its own starting points. Or
does it mean that business policy crawls into our
sector as a Trojan horse.” [Civil servant, The Ministry
of Social Affairs and Health]
6.4 Interviews cont.: Governance
structure
•
”The essential content of the proposal was that the government,
when it starts its operation, defines carefully strategic aims, especially
concerning the innovation system, and to the Cabinet Committee on
Economic Policy tasks are given for preparatory work, decisionmaking, and monitoring. It means that various issues in different
sectoral ministries are constructed to be bigger entireties, and
instead of one sectoral ministry the Cabinet Committee is
responsible for them. Thus, the Cabinet Committee is responsible for
implementing the strategic aim instead of one ministry. This is a new
thought in the Finnish administration, since it would lead the
operational model of a concern. Big issues would be managed at the
concern level instead of at the level of ministries or through their
cooperation. [...] This change can be implemented easily, since it does
not require any renewals in the constitution or changes in legislation. It
can be handled to a large extent through internal decisions of the
government. [A participant in the national innovation strategy process]
6.4 Interviews cont.: Governance
structure
• ” Based on the proposal nothing has happened. [...]
Those kind of actions have not been implemented, and I
do not know whether they will come, and if they will
come, when. Now the top [co-ordination mechanism]
of the steering role of the state concern is missing.
But the Council, it has been changed. [...] But there is
nothing radical in the question at the level of the
Council.” [Civil servant, The Research and Innovation
Council]
6.4 Interviews cont.:Governance
structure
• ” But at least the Ministry of Education [...] saw it as a weakening
effort of their power and position. [...] This would disconnect
them [from the policy-making]. [...] I think that this was not truly
working for the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, since
[...] the ministry did not want to have any strong coordinating
body above them.” [Civil servant]
• “Everyone is afraid that their positions will weaken, and this is
very characteristic. This is the reason why the silo-type structure
exists. [...] And the frame budgeting, which helped to reach
economic joint responsibility inside of the government, now actually
the frame budgeting has aggravated these silos. As much as the
frame budgeting is a good thing it has also led to a situation where
silo thinking is even more than before deeply embedded in the
government. [Industry representative]
6.3 Other policy-making practices to
inluence on specific issues
• The prepared proposal by the three menwas never published.
• Based on interviews it contained proposals:
–
to increase the significance of the new Research and Innovation Policy as
a strategic policy-making body more closely integrated with the operations
of the Prime Minister’s Office with extra resources and t
– to centralise decision-making in the Cabinet Committee on Economic Policy
to cover broadly issues relating to ‘innovation policy’ regardless of the fact
of how these issues have been traditionally seen to belong to various policy
sectors and their administration.
• The various silos of policy fields and their policy-making practices
were seen to hinder the planning and implementation of the national
innovation system –oriented policymaking, or the so-called ‘broadbased innovation policy’.
6.5 Outputs/outcomes
Themes of the operational
plan
Outputs/outcomes
Strengthening the knowledge base
Broad-based innovation activities
(the programme-based working life development was ’institutionalized’ as a
part of the merger of two ministries since the beginning of 2008; currently
one of the focus areas of Tekes activities)
Internationalization of the innovation
environment
Strong and networked innovation
’hubs’
Internationally competitive education
and higher education system
(The University Act, the new structure and the new legal status of Finnish
universities)
Development of the Finnish
environment for growth companies
Stregnthening demand- and userdriven approaches
Programme and an operational plan prepared by the MEE
Tekes and the MEE started a research project in November
2010 in order to measure user innovation
Concern steering at the state level and
systemic way of acting
Research and Innovation Council in 2009
Resources of innovation activities
Tax incentivces for R&D (the current government, a principal decision)
International evaluation of the
innovation system
The evaluation report published in 2009
7. Preliminary findings
• What is broad-based innovation policy: what is ’effectively’
governed; what is the significant change to be carried out 
this is a political debate
• The role of the participatory elements: ’real’ deliberation or
’Micky Mouse’ democracy?
• The access to define the policy problem, to set up the policy
agenda: themes given; making a ’significant change’
• The role of the strong historical institutional setting of the
political bodies and the role of the ’traditional two ministries’:
problems to change the public governance structure
• The question is about resources
• The role of ownership by participating
8. Conclusions
• The aims of the policy in relation to its governance
models
– The market efficiency approach
– The performance efficiency approach
– The stakeholder relations approach
• relying on ‘traditional stakeholder approach’
• integrating partly the Minister of Social and Health Care Policy, not
fully involvement
– The people’s influence approach
Thank you!