Smart Specialization in Australia: Between Policy Mobility and Regional Experimentalism?

Veldhuizen, Caroline; Coenen, Lars

doi:10.1080/00130095.2022.2032637

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previously applied constructivist approaches in policy transfer studies include ethnographic methods, action research and in-depth qualitative case studies (see e.g. Leong and Mukhtarov, 2018; Veldhuizen and Coenen, 2022). Yong and Cameron (2018) further argue that adopting a constructivist approach is inherently tied to studying policy translation.…”

Section: Impasses In Policy Translationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resolving impasses in policy translation: Shall we adjust the idea or the process?

Minkman

2022

Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explains how contrasting perspectives on resolving impasses in policymaking exist among all relevant actors in a case of transferring Dutch flood management policy to Jakarta, Indonesia. It does so by introducing Q methodology as a novel method in policy transfer and policy mobility studies. International policy transfer requires a continuous, iterative process of policy translation where stagnation may occur following disruptions on the policy, polity or political dimension. This paper assumes that actors go through a process in which they assign meaning to transfer objects. Using Q methodology, two contrasting perspectives are identified in the case of transferring the ‘Dutch Delta Approach’ to Jakarta, Indonesia. One perspective emphasises the need for direct implementation, while the other advocates further modification of ideas. These contrasting perspectives cut through existing sender-receiver categorizations and prevent strategic alignment needed for a breakthrough. Furthermore, they suggest a lack of political leadership from Indonesia and potential conflict of interests of the Dutch government as policy sender as other causes for prolonged stagnation. Finally, I conclude that the outsourcing of strategy making and planning to consultants delimits the space for translation.

show abstract

Section: Impasses In Policy Translationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resolving impasses in policy translation: Shall we adjust the idea or the process?

Minkman

2022

Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An acceptance of three frames for innovation policy—R&D, innovation systems, and transformative change based on sustainable development goals (SDGs)—has been widely accepted internationally (Schot & Steinmuller, 2018). Yet only the first two of these appear to have been adopted in Australia at the national level, although some sub‐national activity is apparent (Veldhuizen & Coenen, 2022). Against this international context, it seems that Australia might be failing on innovation policy (Dodgson et al., 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy on innovation in Australia: Divergence in definitions, problems, and solutions

Lewis

Mikołajczak

2023

Aust J Public Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Innovation has joined the mainstream in many nations as governments search for new ways to tackle challenging societal and economic problems. But Australia is seen to be lagging on innovation policy. Is this related to how governments define innovation? What do they regard as the problem they are addressing? What proposed solutions follow from this? This paper examines how Australian governments have defined innovation over four decades, signalling their policy intentions about how to make the nation more innovative. Definitions of innovation are analysed using 79 Australian (national level) policy documents published from 1976 to 2019. Close reading of these documents suggests two main definitions: innovation as technology, and innovation as culture. Topic modelling uncovers more differentiated themes, shows how definitions change over time, and demonstrates an association between definitions and political parties in government. The divergent approaches suggest a lack of coherence and continuity to policy on innovation in Australia. Points for practitioners Innovation has expanded and broadened in its definition and governments and policymakers have paid increasing attention to it. In Australia, there are two main definitions of innovation used in policy—one related to technology and one related to culture. The technology view of innovation can be further divided into a focus on businesses or a focus on research and development (R&D). Different innovation definitions, problems, and solutions dominate at different times, with Coalition governments tending to favour business and technology over culture, and Labor governments doing the opposite. There are divergent approaches to policy on innovation in Australia which suggest a lack of coherence and consistency in policy over the long term.

show abstract

Just Transitions in the Context of Urgent Climate Action

Coenen

Wilson

2023

Palgrave Studies in Environmental Transformation, Transition and Accountability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Smart Specialization in Australia: Between Policy Mobility and Regional Experimentalism?

Cited by 8 publications

References 78 publications

Resolving impasses in policy translation: Shall we adjust the idea or the process?

Resolving impasses in policy translation: Shall we adjust the idea or the process?

Policy on innovation in Australia: Divergence in definitions, problems, and solutions

Just Transitions in the Context of Urgent Climate Action

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About