Use of Technology Foresight in S&amp;T Policy Making: A Korean Experience

Schlossstein, Dominik F.

doi:10.1007/978-3-7908-1914-4_14

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally links to policy‐making become stronger in third generation foresight studies as the concept is already well known in government and the research community. These theoretical considerations are confirmed in the Korean case: For the first two TF studies, direct policy up‐take was virtually non‐existent; it was however strong and visible for the third study (Schlossstein, 2007). Encouraged by TF implications, the Korean government launched a new project in the course of 2005 to identify emerging generic technologies at the national level.…”

Section: Key Resultsmentioning

confidence: 64%

Comparing recent technology foresight studies in Korea and China: towards foresight‐minded governments?

Schlossstein

Park

2006

Foresight

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis paper seeks to compare recent third generation technology foresight studies in South Korea and mainland China. Both studies were released in 2005.Design/methodology/approachReview of the foresight reports released by the Chinese and Korean governments (not available in English), interviews with the project leaders of foresight studies.FindingsChina is relatively behind Korea in the sophistication of its technology foresight methodology. Chinese foresight is second generation (technology focus) whereas Korea's is third generation (society focus). There is no example of policy up‐take of TF results in China so far but there was one very recent example in Korea. There was no private sector participation in using Chinese foresight results; however, there was limited participation in Korea. Foresight methodology should be generally enhanced.Practical implicationsA better link between policy‐making and foresight process is needed. This requires changes at both ends. Governance issues of foresight are addressed towards the end of the paper.Originality/valueOriginal, unpublished competitive paper for the ASIALICS 2006 International Conference, Shanghai, April 2006.

show abstract

Section: Key Resultsmentioning

confidence: 64%

Comparing recent technology foresight studies in Korea and China: towards foresight‐minded governments?

Schlossstein

Park

2006

Foresight

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…South Korea is one of the countries which have an exemplary practice of foresight. It contributed to their ascendancy in the global and technological competitiveness ranking [13]. Singapore participated in foresight in 1991 through the establishment of Risk Detection and Scenario Planning Office in its Ministry of Defense.…”

Section: G Foresight Activities In Asian Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Japan is the first country to actually practice foresight at the national level [13]. It is also the first country to incorporate the Delphi method as its main foresight method [14].…”

Section: G Foresight Activities In Asian Countriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foresight in Malaysia: A case study

Khairuddin

Noor

Haron

et al. 2013

2013 International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the rapid emergence of foresight in the 90s, Malaysia has involved in such practices. However, little is known about Malaysia's foresight initiative. The foresight initiative conducted by Malaysia since its inception in 1997 until Malaysia's first technology foresight initiative at the national level in 2010 does not clearly show its position of its foresight initiative. The details of it and the way it is utilized are unknown at this point. This research aims to address this by providing a case study of foresight in Malaysia.

show abstract

“…Across the 30 OECD member countries, governments shift away from traditional input-driven STI policies (i.e., financial grants and tax breaks) and embrace novel realms such as redesigning institutional structures for a consistent formulation of innovation policies across government departments, foresight and demand articulation studies, bridging institutions (such as technology transfer offices at universities), pragmatic public-private sector interfaces and develop intelligent mechanisms for evaluation and horizontalization (OECD, 2003;OECD, 2005;Schlossstein, 2007). Among the many challenges facing governments today science, technology and innovation (SIT) policies, the OECD specifically mentions adaptive governance, policy coherence, a short-termism in resource allocation, and significant changes in policy paradigms (OECD, 2006b).…”

Section: From National To Regional Innovation Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%