Priority Setting for Public Research: Challenges and Opportunities

Fagerberg Committee- Norwary Friday 5 November 2010

Outline

• Recent trends• Definitions and Rationales • Mechanisms and instruments• Challenges and opportunities

Recent trends: Most countries have increased public R&D budgets between

2004-2009(avg. annual growth)

Recent trends (2) : Stimulus package measures relating to innovation and long-term growth

Recent trends in STI priorities: Environment, energy, health

Strategic STI policy priority areas

National security

Environment, climate

change and oceans

Natural resources

and energy

Food security

Health & related life sciences

(incl. biotech.)

Social challenges

(incl. pension, transport,

urbanisation, housing)

Engineering and advanced manufacturin

g

New materials/

technologies (incl.

nanotech.)

ICTChildren, education

and creativity

Regional influence,

tourism and culture

Others1

AustriaBelgium (Flanders) n n n n n nBelgium (Wallonia) n n n n nCanada n n n n nCzech Republic n n n n n nDenmark n n n n n n n nFinland n n n nFrance n n n n n nGermany n n n n n n n n nHungary n n n n nIsrael n n n n n nItaly n n n n n n n n nJapan n n n n n n n nKorea n n n n n n n n n n n nNetherlands n n n n n n n n nNew Zealand n n n n nNorway n n n n n n n nSlovenia n n n n n n nSpain n n n n nSouth Africa n n n n nSweden n n n n n n n nTurkey n n n n n n n nUnited Kingdom n n n nUnited States n n n n

Definitions and Rationalities

• Priority setting = selection of certain activities at the expense of others with an impact on the allocation of public resources

• Rationales: – Primacy of Economic Efficiency Arguments

• Instrumental rationality • Long term view • Stronger basis for accountability • Thematic areas where excellence can be built

• Political Rationality or Narratives• Public research contribute to economic and social goals

• Governance of STI • Whole of government approach • Stakeholder involvement

Types of Priorities

• Several classifications of types of priorities, among them the following two types:– Thematic Priorities: scientific fields; technoscience / technologies;

sectors; issues; etc.– Structural Priorities: broadly, various innovation-related measures;

more specifically, these might be concerned with research, teaching, firms, regulation, financing, networking and community-building, etc.

• Priorities are set at different levels: – policy (government), – strategic (research funding agencies), – operational (research-performing institutes), i.e. the function

of formulating and implementing S&T priorities (highly decentralised).

Priority setting in an age of globalisation

• Drivers for priority setting:– Open innovation, internationalisation of S&T, and increased

international competition – Emergence of societal issues– ‘Global’ challenges (including sustainable development,

climate change, alternative sources of energy, water supply, etc.) – requiring international collective action (and related governance frameworks)

• Thematic priorities are increasingly shaped by– international agendas– economic rationales concerning international competitiveness

(which tended to lead to much emulation / convergence in priorities rather than niche strategies)

– Scientific excellence and critical mass

• Issues: around governance; interface / interactions between foreign / supranational and national priorities

Mechanisms of priority setting

• Over time, a number of mechanisms have been applied in priority setting:– Technology planning and forecasting (1960/70s)– Technology foresight and roadmapping (1980/90s)– Priority setting and strategic policy intelligence (foresight,

monitoring, evaluation, assessment, etc.)

• Trend toward:– expertise-based consultation mechanisms– programmes (as distinguished from institutions) as vehicle of

priority setting– increased decentralisation – as innovation systems have

become more complex, a larger number of actors have built related capacities and been given responsibilities. However, the degree of (de)centralisation varies widely across countries

Interest in priority setting tools• Priority setting and related instruments, inducing

strong demand for improved methodologies and international learning on best practices.

• Some examples– Austria – National dialogue combined with international peer

review and assessment that identified gaps. Creation of working groups and identification of goals. Political will to develop a vision for 2020.

– Chile – developed more “selective” policies through its clusters initiative.

– Denmark – RESEARCH2015 aims to improve the basis for prioritisation of public funds for strategic research.

– Germany – priority setting is highly decentralized but also involves strong dialogue between the government and the scientific community represented in research funding bodies and the publicly funded research performing institutions……..

Balancing “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches

• Top-down and bottom-up are not mutually exclusive, but an appropriate balance between them is required

• Government / the top-down approach plays a role in– identifying ‘public interest’ areas as well as related

potentials– formulating appropriate policy responses – promoting emerging areas (lacking vested interests),

long-term ventures, multidisciplinarity, societal goals– forming and stabilising expectations

• Bottom-up approaches– Elicit / gather / aggregate information– Express needs of stakeholders / “society”

Some governance / stakeholder issues

• Multiplicity of actors in priority setting – Central ministries to funding agencies/PROs– Public / private / non-profit funders – Central versus regional governments– Research Councils / Funding Agencies– Research performers

• Communication among stakeholders • Balancing functional / thematic priorities• Accountability and co-ordination • Direct vs. indirect channels of influence • Limits to democratisation vs risk of

technocratization – priority setting that escapes democratic processes

Challenges in priority setting (1)

• Underlying rationales for priority setting of public research – Beyond economic efficiency – Need for understanding role of public research and

relation to growth

• Balancing curiosity-driven vs. goal oriented research

• Governance and involvement of stakeholders – Need for coherence in priority setting – but also need for

taking into account the views and interests of different stakeholder groups

• Linking priorities to outcomes and impacts– Links between funding and outcomes / impacts – Which criteria for priority setting and which tools?

Challenges in Priority Setting (2)

• National versus sectoral priorities

• Strategic intelligence – Tension between need to know more for sensible PS <->

inherent limits to what one can know about future technological development

• Priorities in an international context

Opportunities for Priority Setting

• Agenda setting for the future– Process for bring codified and distributed knowledge– Balance short-term and long-term concerns

• Fostering synergies and economies of scope– Not only scale but scope

• Fighting against institutional inertia – Improving adaptability

• Building a broad-based and popular support for S&T

• Policy learning– Identifying key drivers of change and opportunities

Mario.cervantes@oecd.org

Michael.Keenan@oecd.org

Thank you for your attention

www.oecd.org/sti/innovation

Web Resou