Transnational policy learning in Europe: attempts to transfer innovation policy practices.

SUMMARY

Contemporary interest in trans-national policy learning is prompted by a perceived growth in policy transfers and attention is focused on measures employed by other countries which may be used to deal with problems similar to one's own. With regards to 'innovation policy', however, this paper presents empirical findings that confirm there is little evidence of organised 'intelligence gathering' to survey innovation policies from other countries in Europe. Instead, information is usually collected on an ad hoc basis and in response to particular needs. The paper highlights a number of attempts to transfer innovation policies and presents a range of factors that can potentially inhibit trans-national policy learning. A trend towards more 'open and transparent governance' is noted and it is argued that this requires policies and processes to be better understood in their systemic contexts, as well as the shifting institutional environment in which they operate.

KEYWORDS

policy transfer; learning; innovation policy; transnational

INTRODUCTION

Although policy transfer has existed as long as organised government, there has been an increase in the level of academic interest in the subject, prompted in part by a recent increase in its use by policy makers. The need to address global imperatives, combined with advances in communications technologies and the development of extended networks of policy makers have all contributed to an upsurge in policy transfer. Moreover, there are sound economic rationales for avoiding failure and improving performance by learning from the failures and successes of others. Lastly, the activities of transnational organisations and structures such as the OECD and the EU have also served to focus attention on this topic. Overall, therefore, contemporary interest in trans-national policy transfer has been prompted by a perceived growth in transfers in an increasingly interconnected world.

In the literature there appears to be considerable overlap between the concepts of 'policy learning' and 'policy transfer'. Both 'transfer' and 'learning' refer to a process in which knowledge about policies, administrative arrangements, institutions, etc. in one time and/or place is used in the development of policies, administrative arrangements and institutions in another time and/or place (Dolowitz & Marsh 1996). Also much transfer involves elements of obligation or even coercion, and the distinction between voluntary and coercive transfer becomes too simplistic. As such, it might be more helpful to use policy transfer as the generic concept and to see 'lesson-drawing' as a sub-type of transfer.

This paper highlights attempts to transfer innovation policies and presents a number of key factors that can inhibit trans-national policy learning. It is mainly based on empirical evidence gathered from different regions of Europe through the European Innovation Trend Chart project sponsored by the European Commission. This involves an extensive network of country correspondents in Europe and a series of thematic workshop sessions.

LESSON-DRAWING AND LEARNING

Lesson-drawing can be seen as future-oriented and is used as a constructive learning tool, drawing on current experiences in other countries to improve national policy (Cooke et al. 1997). According to Rose (2001), lesson-drawing offers an evidence-based alternative to developing a new programme. It is evidence-based, since a lesson is based on programmes that might have been operating for a long period of time elsewhere. Attention is focused on the measures that other countries employ to deal with a problem similar to one's own. 'Learning' can also be conceptualised as a problem that needs some solution. As Braun and Benninghoff (2003) state, a simple, linear and rational model would describe the learning process as a two-step process, where, first, actors define the problem and then look, by basing their judgement on rational and scientific criteria, for adequate, cost-minimising and benefit-maximising solutions. The best solution is chosen and implemented within the political decision-making process. Rose (2001) asserts that lesson-drawing is a tool that can be used in many different contexts and to different ends. It can stimulate a government to adopt a novel programme or lead to the conclusion that what is deemed 'best practice' elsewhere cannot or should not be introduced here.

Many countries now use the process of 'evaluation' (1) to judge whether government interventions in their national systems of innovation have been useful, effective and performed efficiently (Miles et al. 2005). For example, in countries such as Canada and the United States, evaluation forms a key element in results-based management systems. Evaluation also forms an important learning device in the design of policy programmes in the United Kingdom, Norway and Finland, and the Dutch Government has recently developed a transparent and results-based budgeting and management system. Other European countries with extensive track records in the evaluation of policy instruments, albeit with differing perspectives and experiences, include Germany, France and Sweden (Cunningham et al. 2001). The outcomes of these international experiences in evaluation activities represent a resource of huge potential. As a result, an increasing number of countries are able to examine other countries' experiences in order to learn and improve the design and evaluation of their own national policies and programmes (Simmie 1997). However, to date, only one national study (TECHNOPOLIS, 2001) is known to have actively sought to make a comprehensive assessment and learn from other countries' experiences with the evaluation of policy instruments. This study focused on three main issues: the coordination of the evaluation process (generally in dedicated policy units); the use of ex ante evaluation planning and evaluation techniques; and data collection strategies (monitoring procedures).

EUROPEAN INNOVATION POLICY TRANSFER INITIATIVES

European trend chart on innovation

Innovation is a priority area of all European Member States and the European Commission. Throughout Europe, there are many policy measures and support schemes aimed at the implementation of innovation policy goals. (2) However, as emphasised by some of the innovation policy literature (see for example, Lundvall 1992; Nelson 1993) there needs to be an understanding of innovation systems dynamics from the national to the meso- or regional level. The diversity of these innovation policy measures reflects the diversity of different political priorities and cultural preferences in Europe, and also the systemic context existing at these various levels. For example, measures might be targeted at improving public sector research links with industry, commercialisation of innovative products and services, improving entrepreneurship training, or regulatory reforms or promotion of science and technology parks or industrial clusters, that is, they occupy a range from direct to indirect forms of policy intervention. Moreover, their design is contingent upon existing infrastructures, regulatory, fiscal and macro-economic conditions, behavioural norms, and other contextual factors prevailing at the operational level of the measure.

The 'First Action Plan for Innovation in Europe' was launched by the European Commission in 1996, and provided for the first time, a common analytical and political framework for innovation policy in Europe (European Commission 1996). As part of the overall effort to ensure improved policy coordination and 'open learning' amongst EU Member States, the European Commission launched the Innovation Trend Chart project, (3) a practical tool for innovation policy makers and scheme managers in Europe. Run by the European Commission's DG Enterprise (Innovation Directorate), Trend Chart pursues the collection, regular updating and analysis of information on innovation policies at national and Community level, with a particular focus on: innovation finance; the creation and development of innovative businesses; the protection of intellectual property rights; and the transfer of technology between research and industry. The Trend Chart serves the 'open policy coordination approach' (4) laid down by the Lisbon Council in March 2000. It supports policy makers and scheme managers in Europe with summarised information and statistics on innovation policies, performances and trends in the European Union. It is also a European forum for benchmarking and the exchange of 'good practices' in the area of innovation policy.

'Open method of coordination' and innovation policy

The 'Open Method of Coordination', set out by the Lisbon European Council in March 2000, was an important goal for the European Union to strengthen social cohesion and ensure that Europe can become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010 (Lisbon European Council 2000). The 'Open Method' was launched as a new approach to stimulate trans-national policy learning in Europe. The conclusions of the Council describe the method as a learning process of spreading best practice among European Member States and Candidate Countries.