Pecs Session / Week 2 - July 2009
Qu i ck Ti me ™ et un
dé co mp re ss eu r Grap hi sme s
so nt req ui s p ou r v is i on ner ce tte im ag e.
STI policy rationales.
Part I : paradigms
Laurent Bach
laurent.bach@unistra.fr
BETA, university Strasbourg
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
1
Setting the scene…
Public research infrastructure (universities, research centers, …)
research activities
incentives for researchers
Technology procurement policy
Purchase/pioneer use by public entities (administrations, organisms, public companies,
Support to cooperation between firms and public research
"valorization" - Tech transfers
joint research activities
Support to cooperation between firms
Funding of S, T & I activities
grants
loans at preferential rate
reimboursable advance (conditionned to success)
loans garantee
equity fundings/seed, risk capital
export credits
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
2
Tax system
research tax credit
tax relief for technology-related purchase
income tax on funds providers (business angels, foundations…)
Legal and regulation aspects
IPR
Norms, technical reglementations
Reglementation on foreign trade (techno transfer, barriers,…)
Competences building
(higher) education system
Diffusion of scientific and technical information
libraries, data base, info network
Standard, plateforms, common langage
Supporting infrastructures
technical, legal, management …assistance and services
scientific/technical facilities
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
3
Organisation, rules, modalities …
= "institutionnal arrangement"
•
•
•
•
LEVEL OF INTERVENTION
up-stream = science / downstream = innovation
innovation in general / specific innovation
target population
creation / optimisation - adaptation - diffusion
RULES
•
•
•
•
•
•
+
creation or not of dedicated body
criteria and modalities of selection of beneficiaries
interactions between managing bodies and beneficiaries
interactions between beneficiaries (cooperation)
funding schemes
IPR / diffusion of outcomes …
Sectoral policies : education, industry, regional, competition…
Entrepreneuriship "climate" (public administrative streamline-simplication, awards, labor
market, etc)
Promotion of social consensus supporting science and technology
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
4
Science - Technology
- Innovation Policies :
Long history, recent emphasis (WW II, 80/90s)
Many different tools and combination of tools (cf Georghiou-Edler tab)
Fashion aspects, policy imitation and diffusion
Multiple stakeholders
Multiple decision levels
A lot of typologies :
Mission - diffusion, Vertical - horizontal,
Supply side - Demand side, etc
NEED OF THEORETICAL BACKGROUND :
IDENTIFICATION OF RATIONALES,
which to some extent are common to the "S", the
"T" and the "I" dimensions of policy
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
5
Pecs Session / Week 2 - July 2009
Qu i ck Ti me ™ et un
dé co mp re ss eu r Grap hi sme s
so nt req ui s p ou r v is i on ner ce tte im ag e.
STI policy rationales.
Part I : paradigms
•The basics : simple rationales for STI policy
•The "traditional" opposition between paradigms
•"Policy mix" and "rationale mix"
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
6
1. The basics :
simple rationales for STI policy
« Simple » rationales for State intervention
in Science, Technology and Innovation
(Pavitt - Walker)
• Independance, security, prestige
• Growth
/
competitivity
industrial
development
through
• Social development (education, health, jobs, Quality
of Life,...)
• Scientific progress per se
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
7
Investment in STI, from innovator standpoint:
• High (and increasing) R&D costs
• Uncertainty on feasibility, results, economic value
• imitation, knowledge leakage etc
• demand reaction
risk
• long term rentability
Lack of incentives for private R&D investment:
= investment/profitabilty profile does not fit the "normal" private
investment/profitability profile (NPV, payback, RoR…)
"too low" level of private investment as compared to the needs
of society
 PUBLIC INTERVENTION
<=> simpliest formulation of "market failure" argument
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
8
Source : Philippe Bourgeois DGE/SPIC
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
9
2. The "traditional" opposition
between paradigms
• Detailed analysis of two paradigms
Neo-classical / standard framework (NC)
vs Evolutionist structuralist framework (ES)
• Attempts to identify causal beliefs including :
Theoretical foundations
Main features
« Failures » justifying State intervention
Consequences of these failures
Basic principles for State intervention
(Tools / instruments)
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
10
Standard / Neo-classical framework :
theoretical foundations - 1
Neo-classical / main stream economics
+
Theory of incentives : information asymetries + optimal contracts
Transaction cost theory : governance cost
+
« at the fronteer » :
(1) New growth theory (ROMER, LUCAS, AGHION, …) :
Endogeneisation of S&T
Importance of supply of knowledge (human capital, education,
RD, infrastructure…) as a source of growth
But focus on information, incentives, « mechanical » aspects
=> real departure from standard approach ?
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
11
Standard / Neo-classical framework :
theoretical foundations - 2
(2) (New) Economics of science (DAVID, DASGUPTA,…) :
• inherent and specific properties of the information :
- Imperfect information (information paradox)
- Non-rivalry and non-excludability (information as a "public good")
=> problem of property right
- Low cost of REproduction
• new line between S-related and T-related activities and outputs :
- the practices of diffusion associated with incentive schemes
- the choice of the optimal level of codification (cf reward system)
- the higher uncertainty in the production and use of scientific results
- the fact that results from basic research are considered mainly as a
information input for applied research (more generic usefulness)
- higher indivisibilities in science production
- longer term perspective of science
=> possible background for distinction between S and T and I policies
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
12
"Linear model"
invention
BASIC
RESEARCH
innovation
APPLIED
RESEARCH
DEVELOPPMENT
diffusion
"ON THE
MARKET"
Production
Sales
USE BY NONINNOVATORS
Imitatosr,
Adopters
clients
technology push
science
technology
market
demand pull
• the "holy sequence" of clearly distinct steps
• fit with classic distinctions :
Nature of knowledge (public vs private), repartition of roles (State –
univ - PROs vs firms), incentive mechanisms (Merton vs market) …
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
13
Standard / Neo-classical framework :
Main features
Comprehensive and extremely coherent « paradigm »
• Market : unique mode of coordination and of selection
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
State is « outside »
Equilibrium
Static analysis
Optimizing rationality
Input - output perspective / linear model of innovation
Central focus : optimal allocation of resources
Normative reference : welfare/Pareto analysis
• Research (S,T,I) as production of output = information
+ information as an input for downstream activities
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
14
Standard / Neo-classical framework :
Knowledge (scientific, technological, productembedded etc) + production of knowledge +
use of knowledge exhibit some characteristics
not fitting with "ideal" characteristics =>
market/price mechanisms cannot work =
market failures => consequences for social
optimality => basic principles for public
intervention
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
15
Standard / Neo-classical framework :
failures,
consequences
principles for policy action
• Imperfect information
(information paradox)
• Non-rivalry and nonexcludability
=> problem of property right
• Low cost of REproduction
• Indivisibilities, long term
and
• Lack of information on results,
use and demand => high risk
• Long term rentability
• High cost
• Problem of appropriability of S&T
“products” and of gains from innovation
=> knowledge externalities
=> market externalities
=> network externalities
Reducing uncertainty (environment, S, D)
Substituting to the market (S and D sides)
(sharing risk and cost)
Allowing for internalizing externalities
(property rights, cooperation)
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
16
Evolutionist structuralist framework :
theoretical foundations
Different approaches from different disciplines (mono or multi-disciplinary)
with common features and specific focus
Evolutionary theory :
focus on evolution of technology, firms, industries, etc
diversity generation / reproduction / selection processes
Systemic / Network approaches (N/L SI, clusters, etc) :
focus on coordination, complementarities,
variety of institutions
Knowledge-based economics :
focus on knowledge creation, sharing, processing,
access, diffusion, etc / cognitive processes
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
17
"interactive model"
•More complex processus : feedback, overlaps
•"Innovation" at all stages
•Specific role of knowledge base:
specific to each actor/organisation
accumulation processes (capitalisation, learning,
forgetfulness)
=> "path-dependancy" (example : Kline-Rosenberg model)
•Classical distinction put in question
•Linear model = one possible pattern within the interactive
model
•New perspectives on
Nature of knowledge, repartition of roles,
incentive mechanisms …
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
18
Evolutionist structuralist framework :
main features
NC framework
•
Market : unique mode of
coordination and of selection
• State is « outside »
• Equilibrium
• Static analysis
• Optimizing rationality
• Input - output perspective /
linear model of innovation
• Central focus : optimal allocation
of resources
• Normative reference :
welfare/Pareto analysis
• Research (S,T,I) as production
of output = information
+ information as an input
for downstream activities
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
• Variety of modes of coordination and of
selection
• State is part of the game
• No equilibrium
• Dynamic analysis / Path dependancy
• Other forms of rationality
• Inter-active model of innovation
• Central focus : creation of resources
+ knowledge (≠ information) = fundamental
resource
• Unclear normative reference :
« adequate » system, processes, cognitive
capacities ? environment ensuring « good
trajectories » / « good paradigm » ?
• Knowledge coming from anywhere in the
system (not only Research)
19
Evolutionist structuralist framework :
failures,
consequences
principles for policy action
and
• inadequate selection processes
• lack of coordination, complementarities, lack of institutions,
speed of adjustment between institutions and S&T...
• misallocation of resources and cognitive attention between
exploration and exploitation
• knowledge creation, processing, distribution failures :
codification, circulation, emitting/ absorptive / articulation
capacity, structure of knowledge...
• lack of diversity
• “negative” lock-in
• difficulty for paradigmatic changes
• knowledge, social, institutional..”gaps”
Not so coherent :
Cognitive capacity of actors : development,
orientation, adequate conditions of use...
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
20
NC framework
ES framework
Cognitive capacity of actors
: development,
Orientation, adequate
conditions of use...
Reducing uncertainty (environment, S, D)
Substituting to the market (S and D sides)
(sharing risk and cost)
Allowing for internalization of externalities
(property rights,
cooperation)
Tools / instruments
Common ?
Specific ? Specific ?
Optimal allocation by market
(or pseudo-market) mechanisms
Yes
Social optimality
Normative
reference ?
Diversity, selection, cohesion
No
State "a priori" in/out
of system ?
Out
In
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
« good » trajectories
« good » transition
between paradigms
21
Failures and rationales for policy action
Table 1.2 : The two dominant para digmsΚ
: failures, consequences and principl es for policy actio
The
 Imperfect information
(information paradox)
NCΚframeworkΚ:
The ES frameworkΚ:
LEARNING/SYSTEM FAILURES
MARKET FAILURES
 Non-rivalry and nonexcludability
=> problem of property right
 Low cost of reproduction
 Indivisibilities, long term
 Lac k of information on results,
use and demand => high risk
 Long term r entability
 Lac k of diversity
 Inadequate selection processes
 NegativeΣ lock-in
 Systemic/institutional failures :
coordination, comp lementarity,
lack o f institutions, speed of
adjustment between institutions and
S&T...
 Difficulty for
paradigmatic changes
 High cost
 Problem of appropriability of
S& productsΣ and of gains
from innovation => knowledge
/ market / network externalities
 Misallocation of resources and
cognitive attention between
exploration and exploitation
 Knowledge / social /
institutional.. ΣgapsΣ
POLICY PRINCIPLES
 Reducing uncertainty (environment, Supply
Not so coherent :
and Demand sides)
 Cognitive capacity of actors
 Substituting to the market (Supply and
: developme nt, orientation,
Demand sides)Κ:sharing risk and cost
adequate conditions of use...
 Knowledge creation / processing, /
distribution failures : c odification,
circulation, emitting / absorptive /
articulation capacity, structure of
knowledge...
 Allowing for internalization of
externalitiesΚ
: property rights, cooperation
POLICY TOOLS / INSTRUMENTS
(see Table)
Optimal allocation by market (or
pseudo-market) mechanisms
Social optimality
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
Diversity, selection, cohesion
ΗΚGoodΚΘtrajectories, ΗΚgoodΚΘ
transition between paradigms
22
STI tools re-interpreted
Interpretation
in the NC framework
Basic tools and instruments
of S&T policy
reduce uncertainty and asymetries
Diffusion of
Information
idem
substitute to private investment for production
of scientific output considered as public good
partially substitute to private investment for
production of technology considered as nonrival and partly excludable good
change the available knowledge-base;
involves codification; change distribution of
Knowledgeknowledge
Public intermediaries of
idem;
Information
Knowledgereinforce coordination
Public labs in Science
Public p rocurement
full guarantee of appropriability of technology
considered as non-rival and partly excludable
good
Prop erty rights
substitute to private investment for production
of human capital
Coop eration
firms,
firms and p ublic labs
orient selection process by reinforcing
exploitation
partial change of emitting/absorptive capacity
change distribution and sharing of knowledge;
all ty p esreinforce coordination and complementarity;
change emitting/absorptive capacity
Education
increase cognitive capacity
Emergence of standards
and p lateforms
orient selection process; involves codification
Norms, regulations
orient selection process; involves codification
Other related p olicies
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
increase and change the available knowledgebase by reinforcing exploration; involves
codification; change emitting/absorptive
capacity of labs
Subsidy to R&D activities of firms increase and change the available knowledgebase by reinforcing exploration; involves
codification; change emitting/absorptive
capacity of firms
substitute to private demand (limited in time)
internalize externalities : monetary (vertical
coop.), knowledge (horizontal coop.);
diffusion of information; risk/cost sharing
Interpretation
in the ES framework
orient selection process
23
3. "policy mix" and "rationale mix"
Beyond this NC / EC opposition :
need to mix approaches ?
Different rationales adressing different dimensions ?
ex extented from A. BONACCORSI :
(a) Incentives: neoclassical theory of market
failure
(b) Factors of production: endogenous growth
(c) Processes and coordination: neoinstitutional and evolutionary
(d) Learning: knowledge-based economics
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
24
Different (mix of ?) rationales underlying one given
tool/instrument
 Tools which aim at fostering cooperation between actors :
sharing/complementarity of costs, risks, information, joint
creation of / distribution of knowledge ?
 Public research :
beyond « pure public good argument » ?
 Patents : Protection/diffusion dilemna, signaling,
intangible base for cooperation ? (see slides at end)
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
25
Mixing tools/instruments
and mixing rationales ?
• cooperative agreement /funding / IPR :
NC : same failure adressed ? too many failure remedies ? (ex ante vs ex
post reward vs patent ?; limit fundings to transaction/cooperation costs
?...)
• policy oriented towards SME :
Are supposed SME specificities grounded in rationales ?
• Lisboa agenda and EC "policy mix":
"the combination of policy
instruments, which interact to infuence the quantity and quality of R&D investment in public
and private sectors" (http://www.policymix.eu/policymixtool/)
• Research Infrastructures: sharing cost, create opportunity for
networking, research outputs, research tools… (http://cordis.europa.eu/infrastructures/)
• The renewal of Demand side policy (cf Georghiou-Edler paper – next 3 slides)
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
26
The case of Demand side policy
More on the "I" side
Return of Demand Side policy in the policy arena (EU, UK),
while still present in US and Japan
Definition :
All public measures to induce innovation and/or speed up
diffusion of innnovations through increasing the demand
for innovations, defining new functional requirement for
products and services or better articulates demand
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
27
Mix of rationales :
•Lack of incentives on demand side => fundings (NC)
•Asymetries of information, transaction costs => increase and diffusion
of info (NC)
•Demand is often "local" and should be at least partly "locally" answered
:
 heterogeneity, path dependancy, idosyncracy etc
 local Innov System, spillovers, etc
 user-producer interactions, "lead" user, etc
=> System and cognitive failures
•"Good directions" towards orienting innovation processes
=> Selection failures
•Demand and Knowledge base should be aligned
=> System and cognitive failures (standards, etc)
• Inter- gvtal department strategies and coordinations
=> System failures
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
28
Mix of STI policy tools:
Basis = public procurement policies (general vs strategic,
direct vs catalytic, commercial vs pre-commercial)
Combined with supply side fundings - technology
plateforms …
Policy mixes :
Improvement of public services and policies : better
answers to societal need through innovation
= sustainable devlopment, health, etc backed up by
STI policy
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
29
policy boundaries, overlaps, complementarity :
 ST&I vs competition policy (monopoly, cartels, public aids,
public procurement…)
 ST&I vs education policy (Univ.-PROs, longlife training…)
 ST&I and environmental/sustainable dvpt oriented policy
 ST&I and …
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
30
3. Towards a « rationale mix »
framework for policy processes in
reality
(from EPOM / Prime NoE project http://www.prime-noe.org/)
Interaction between two types of rationales in the
policy design, making and implementation processes
Production policy rationales
Governance policy rationales
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
31
Interaction between two types of rationales :
1. “Production policy rationales", i.e. causal beliefs,
about the production of knowledge and set-up of policy
instruments; providing a theoretical framework for
understanding knowledge creation and justifying public
intervention (failure argument) and the type of policy proposed
<=> what was covered in first part of lecture
Economics - Sociology of science
"neo-classical paradigm" vs “evolutionist structuralist
approach” (Lundvall & Borras 1997; Bach & Matt, 2005 …)
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
32
•Traditional paradigm (V. Bush)
Focus on fundamental research, Justification of public research : defense, prestige,
general welfare, knowledge per se + « pure public good »
•Neo-classical / market paradigm (Arrow + Dasgupta-David)
Distinction between fundamental research (open science, knowledge as public good)
and technology (property right, Knowledge as private good) + competion / incentives /
flexibility of resources / cost-cutting; Justification of public intervention : market
failures
•System / Network paradigm (Lundvall, Nelson, CSI…)
Importance of the complementarity of /the links between multiple actors :
coordination, alignement of objectives and resources…; Justification of public
intervention : system failure
•Evolutionary approach (Nelson & Winter, Dosi, Metcalfe…)
focus on the generation (mutations), distribution (diversity) and diffusion
(transmission) of changes + fitness and co-evolution as compared to the environment
(selection mechanisms). diversity generation, diffusion
•Knowledge-based approach (Cohendet Meyer-Krahmer)
Knowledge as collectively produced, shared, distributed + multi-dimensional
knowledge with tacit dimension + importance of learning processes; Justification of
public intervention : learning (cognitive) failures
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
33
Strong connexions to sociology of science (Benner
and Biegelbauer in EPOM [2005]) :
•the simplest linear model, distinguishing Research
and Economy, then enhanced by the Mertonian
tradition;
•standard linear model of innovation, with
sequential (technology push or demand pull) link,
and clear distribution of roles between actors along
the steps of the model;
•the interactive model stream, including Gibbons
mode 2, Triple Helix and the like;
•the constructivist approaches.
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
34
• Interaction between the actors – the Triple Helix
(Loet Leydedorff Henry Etzkowitz)
Researchers who are
prepared to exploit their
knowledge. Universities that
profile their education and
research.
Research
Entrepreneurs who recognize
the value of new knowledge.
Managers who can identify
market requirements and have
the courage to invest their
resources. Investors who are
prepared to wait for a return
on their investments.
Politics
Business
Legislators who influence
the conditions under
which companies and
researchers are working.
Politicians who allocate
resources for research
and development. Local
authorities and county
councils who set out to
facilitate the
establishment of new
companies and make
their local areas pleasant
places to live.
Adapted from M. Benner [2005]
Separate institutions / intermediaries - Modes of direct communications - Mixed roles
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
35
Interaction between two types of rationales :
2.
“Governance
policy
rationales”,
reflecting the
governance paradigms ruling state intervention in general; not
policy sector specific but have encompassing validity; they often
correspond to political traditions and culture
Political science - Public management
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
36
•Centralism / technocratic model
Centralization of decision processes
Highly professionalized civil servant
Command & Control model
strong hypothesis on the capacity of State in terms of access to information,
processing of information and action
•Network State model
with a focus on coordination role, decentralisation, enablement skills,
public/private cooperation, self-regulatory approach
•New Public Management model
Clear policy target/goals
Clear budget
Systematic performance analysis
Clear and explicit decision processes
•Decentralized multi-level model :
multiple centers of decision with budget, staff…(not necessarily hierarchical)
•Decentralized multi-space model :
multiple and heterogeneous public & scientific interest groups (public opinion,
consumers, patients, NGO,…)
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
37
Governance
Policy
Rationales
Production
Rationales
Policydesign &
making
Incl. Monitoring and
evaluation tools
(+ "no instrument")
Policy tools
Policy
Design & making
frame
Implementation
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
38
Policy design/making frame
• Public influence and the business point of view
• "Fertile soil", i.e. background and receptivity of policy makers
(political preferences, culture, education,…) => selective
attention and cognitive choices of policy makers
• Turnover of political personal and of technocrats
• Policy entrepreneurs
• Boundary institutions
• Examples, images and stylised facts ("prototype embodying
knowledge")
• Reports and other white papers
• "Tactical interests"
• Policy-making procedure and its "hidden side"
• Competing rationales in government
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
39
Not static / sequential / "once and for all"
Dynamics :
•Path-dependancy
•Learning and feed-back loops
•Continuous (minor) changes
•Major revisions triggered by :
inefficiency observed in the system
major changes in ideology or rationales
diffusion of ideas (« emulation », benchmarking)
pressure related to external shocks or the public
=> time matching between policy cycle / ideas cycle (windows of
opportunity
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
40
mix
Production
Rationales
mix
dynamic coherence
co-evolution
Policydesign &
making
Governance
Policy
Rationales
mix
mix
Policy tools
mix
Implementation
mix
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
41
Towards « archetypal » mixes ?
3 coherent models
Production
Rationale
ideal
model 1
Traditional
Research &
Innovation modes
Simpliest
linear model
Research / Economy
ideal
model 2
ideal
model 2
Neo-classical /
market
System /
Network
Evolutionism
Knowledge-based
Governance
Rationale
Centralism / technocratic
Command&Control
Merton
Standard
linear model
Interactive model
New Public Management
Network State
/ Gibbons mode 2
Triple Helix
Constructivism
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
Decentralized multi-level
Decentralized multi-space
42
The case of patent : NC vs K.O. framework
(based on [COHENDET-MEYER-KRAHMER, 2004 - PENIN, 2004])
Patent in NC revisited approach :

Knowledge as information + appropriability pb
 Patents = appropriability means, strong property right=>
to enhance individual motives (individual inventor),
BUT should favour global knowledge production
+ appropriability / diffusion (+ cumulativeness) dilemna
=> Various length and scope of patent
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
43
Patent in Knowedge-based approach (1) :
 Patents = appropriability + other dimensions:
o negotiation role (bargaining power)
o first step for cooperation/knowledge exchange
(balance of power between members of network)
o
Signalling/disclosure device/reputation
Example: communities (free-software) produce semi-public
goods (common but not available to all)
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
44
Patent in Knowedge-based approach (2) :
Reconsidering incentives (ex. free software) :
 the key role of institutional settings (IS=norms, rules, standard)
 IS govern incentives to produce and diffuse knowledge
 IS shape the codification processes and thus the costs of
transfering knowledge (science vs. industry)
=> If incentives to build knowledge in a community
are strong, then appropriation is marginal
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
45
Patent in Knowedge-based approach (3) :
 Is patent still a valid policy tool ?
new dimensions of patents <=> new uses made by firms => new «K.O.
failures» ? does patent help to overcome those «K.O. failures »? If yes,
is it an appropriate tool? (ex. : too expensive as a tool to foster
cooperation!)
 Patents hamper diffusion (traditional view), BUT also the production
of knowledge (ex: IPR on software; IPR on fragments of gene before
identification of product => no product => go beyond cumulativeness
of information : importance of common cognitive platforms).
STI Policy rationales. Part I : Paradigms - L. BACH
46