Public financing of innovation: new questions

Mazzucato, Mariana; Semieniuk, Gregor

doi:10.1093/oxrep/grw036

Cited by 175 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, policy or governance failures may loom large (Mazzucato & Semieniuk, 2017), since it is unclear what the socially optimal level of public R&D investment is, or in which particular industry, technology or region investments should be undertaken. The approach also neglects the complex and often tacit nature of knowledge (Edler & Fagerberg, 2017).…”

Section: Schumpeterian and Neoclassical Concepts And Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Empirical studies have identified the implementation and commercialization phase and other problems as the most challenging ones (OECD, 2010). The market failure argument as a rationale for science, technology and innovation policies, thus, seems to be ' … increasingly inadequate to … guide the design and implementation of innovation policy more broadly' (Edler & Fagerberg, 2017, p. 8;Mazzucato & Semieniuk, 2017).…”

Section: Schumpeterian and Neoclassical Concepts And Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Regional innovation policies for new path development – beyond neo-liberal and traditional systemic views

Tödtling

Trippl

2018

European Planning Studies

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How new regional growth paths emerge and what policy concepts are most adequate for nurturing their evolution constitute recurring themes in regional innovation and development studies. New industrial paths are often portrayed as the result of market-driven processes and Schumpeterian entrepreneurial efforts. This view goes along with a neoliberal policy approach that restricts the role of public interventions to setting up a suitable regulatory frame and supporting an entrepreneurial climate. The theoretical underpinnings and policy perspectives of this approach have been challenged by the innovation system literature, which offers a systemic view on the rise of new growth paths and advocates a more proactive role of public policy. This paper investigates the role of policy models beyond these traditional ones. We contrast different variants of systemic and multi-scalar policy concepts for new regional industrial path development. Our literature-based study shows that more recent models go beyond new path development and growth per se, paying more attention to the direction of innovation and change, and to policy approaches for achieving more sustainable forms of development. We scrutinize the theoretical and empirical bases of these new policy models and discuss why they are superior to neoliberal and older systemic ones. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Schumpeterian and Neoclassical Concepts And Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Schumpeterian and Neoclassical Concepts And Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regional innovation policies for new path development – beyond neo-liberal and traditional systemic views

Tödtling

Trippl

2018

European Planning Studies

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Source: Authors' calculations based on BNEF data, explained in Mazzucato and Semieniuk (2018) Another class of publicly controlled actors that does invest in equity in high-risk sectors are state-owned utilities, which have provided a disproportionately large share of high-risk offshore wind finance (Mazzucato and Semieniuk 2017;. This suggests that the public sector does not withdraw its finance after the research stage and leaves it to private investors to diffuse innovation.…”

Section: Deploymentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Financing green growth

Semieniuk¹

2019

Handbook on Green Growth

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP) aims to develop a new framework for creating, nurturing and evaluating public value in order to achieve economic growth that is more innovation-led, inclusive and sustainable.We intend this framework to inform the debate about the direction of economic growth and the use of mission-oriented policies to confront social and technological problems. Our work will feed into innovation and industrial policy, financial reform, institutional change, and sustainable development.A key pillar of IIPP's research is its understanding of markets as outcomes of the interactions between different actors. In this context, public policy should not be seen as simply fixing market failures but also as actively shaping and co-creating markets. Re-focusing and designing public organisations around mission-led, public purpose aims will help tackle the grand challenges facing the 21st century.IIPP is housed in The Bartlett, a leading Global Faculty of the Built Environment at UCL, with its radical thinking about space, design and sustainability. AbstractThis paper surveys the current state of financing green growth in the energy sector, based on the insight that there are different qualities of finance. In past transformational changes in other sectors, public monies played a key role across the innovation landscape. Public financing was central also in a number of past national energy transitions, as reviewed here for Iceland (from fossil to geothermal energy), Norway (from mainly non-electricity energy to hydroelectricity), France (from oil to nuclear) and the United States (from conventional to shale gas). In the current transition to low-carbon energy supplies, there is much public activity, most directed and concerted in China, but also reasons to doubt it is enough and applied in the right places to be able to finance the transition to a low carbon sector on time scales consistent with current climate change mitigation targets. A discussion of opportunities and challenges to a more central role for public financing concludes, drawing also on insights from the recent mission-oriented innovation literature.

show abstract

“…There is now broad consensus that innovation does not only serve economic growth and competitiveness, but that governments invest in innovation with a broad range of further objectives (Bozeman & Sarewitz, 2011;Lindner et al, 2016;Mazzucato & Semieniuk, 2017;Miller & Neff, 2013;Schillo & Kinder, 2017). This increased awareness of non-economic objectives is often framed in the context of "grand challenges" (Hicks, 2013;Kallerud et al, 2013) and has been applied extensively in policy development in Europe, the United States, and many other countries.…”

Section: Theoretical Precursors To Inclusive Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%