• STI Policy Review
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.1-19
• /
• 2014

The concept of a holistic innovation policy is defined in this article, with discussions of what it is, why it is relevant, and how it can be implemented to enhance product innovation. It is shown that the innovation systems approach has diffused rapidly during the latest decades and has completely replaced the linear view in the field of innovation research. The majority of European countries are striving in the direction of developing a more holistic innovation policy. However, it is concluded that the innovation policies in European countries are still dominantly linear despite the fact that holistic policy seems to be the driving vision. Innovation policy is behindhand. Why innovation policy is still linear is also preliminarily discussed. Policymakers attending conferences on innovation are practically always in favor of holistic (systemic, broad-based, comprehensive, etc) innovation policies, have abandoned the linear view by learning from innovation research. The division between "linear" and "holistic" seems to be located within the community where innovation policies are designed and implemented, a community composed of policymakers (administrators/bureaucrats) and elected politicians. Perhaps the dividing line is between these two groups in that politicians, who actually make the decisions, may still reflexively believe in the linear view. Nevertheless, there seems to be a failure in communication between researchers and politicians in the field of innovation and there is therefore a strong need to involve innovation researchers in policy design and implementation to a much higher degree. Another way to increase the degree of holism could be to separate innovation policy from research policy, since their integration tends to cement the linear character of innovation policy. The empirical results are based on a questionnaire sent to twenty-three EU Member States, out of which nineteen (83%) responded. Part of the work for this article was carried out for the European Research and Innovation Area Committee (ERAC) of the European Commission (DG RTD).

• Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society
• /
• v.10 no.3
• /
• pp.555-579
• /
• 2007

This study analysed theory and application of holistic innovation policy in the 3rd generation innovation policy with cases of Finland and Korea. Innovation policy areas of both countries are expanding from simple goal of economic development to extensive goals such as sustainable development, quality of life, balanced growth etc. Also administrative system changed in order to let technical innovation on the center of national operation and reorganized relation and structure of relative policies like manpower, education, region policy. Particularly, Korea is in embryo standing for S&T driven society since Noh's government. But, there are differences in embodiment degree and feature between both countries. Finland reinvigorate field of public opinion due to corporatism tradition as a Scandinavian institution. Government support system developed co-program and co-policy beyond territory of individual ministry to raise policy effectiveness. However, concept of the Korean innovation policy is ahead of the times but maintained framework of developing country. And there is no active participation of private sector and civil society because transition process accomplished on the top-down method, It could hardly progress toward transition in spite of various efforts to carry out a reform.

• STI Policy Review
• /
• v.4 no.2
• /
• pp.96-112
• /
• 2013

The need for designing and implementing integrated policy was further emphasized in tandem with the increase in interest concerning policy coordination and interactions. An active discussion is taking place in the field of innovation policy concerning "integrated innovation policy," which considers innovation along with financial, regional development, social, and environmental policies together in a holistic manner. In Korea since the beginning of the 2000s, there were many attempts at implementing integrated innovation policy through the restructuring of the overall S&T administration system. For the purposes of taking an integrated approach to S&T policies as well as to S&T-related human resources, industrial, and regional development policies, the Roh Administration (February 2003~February 2008) elevated the S&T Minister to the level of Deputy Prime Minister as well as launching the Office of Science, Technology, and Innovation (OSTI) (October 2004 ~ February 2008) under the Ministry of Science and Technology. This study investigates the policy coordination activities of the OSTI from the perspective of policy integration. It deals with the background of the OSTI, its roles and responsibilities, the coordination process, and its achievements and limitations while discussing the important implications for developing effective policy measures with the hope of contributing to the development of theories of integrated innovation policy.

• Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.662-686
• /
• 2009

Lately innovation is perceived as a systemic, horizontal phenomenon and requires a new governance for innovation. Subsequently, broader societal questions enter the domain of innovation policy and coordination and integration between innovation policy and various other policy domains, such as economic, educational, social, regional and environmental policies become crucial. Definitions of policy integration include terms such as coherence, cooperation, coordination and put great emphasis on joint working to promote synergies among policies and reduce duplication and the use of the same goals to formulate policy. As innovation capabilities of the private sector have improved and it has become unclear who to catch up with, the Korean government, a leading player in the process of "catch-up," is likely to have more difficulties in maintaining the old way of planning and executing policies. The Korean government is now under the pressure of planning technologies and policies that do not allow any easy imitation or copy of other advanced countries longer, which in turn reveals various limits of the existing policy framework. Policy integration involves a continual process demanding changes in political, organizational and procedural activities. To ensure long term and cross sectoral innovation policy, overall change and improvement in policy and its implementation needed in terms of political commitments, governance systems, policy instruments and monitoring, and evaluation systems.

• Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• pp.411-437
• /
• 2018

This paper articulates the STI strategy development principles and methodologies that have been elaborated through iterative processes of STI strategy development cases for the past ten years. The consultation cases include poverty traps in Nepal and Laos, African health challenges in Nigeria and Tanzania, and ASEAN global challenges in Indonesian Water, Vietnamese Green Energy, and Filipino Food, in partnership with some multilateral agencies.The iterative elaboration process has continued with consultation activities on Thailand and on Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar in planning partnership with Thailand. The principles were originally conceptualized from the benchmarking process of the Korean STI development experience. They were further incorporated as methodologies with which relevant planning bodies are guided to address individual and regional challenges through science, technology and innovation strategies. The methodologies are strong in providing plausible holistic perspective scenarios by which various stakeholders can be engaged in the planning and implementation process. But it is heuristic in nature and can be learned only through on-the-job training process. This is the structural limitation for scaling up.

• 지역과문화
• /
• v.6 no.4
• /
• pp.47-72
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this paper is to explore what roles can and should regional culture play in establishing a regional innovation system, which has been recently described as an essential factor for balanced regional development and specialized regional development. In doing so, we first investigated key concepts and discourses regarding regional innovation system and examined the success factors of a regional innovation system. We also explored how the Korean policy makers have developed the nation's regional innovation policy and regional cultural policy in order to understand the policy context and its limitations. After examining the theoretical background, we reviewed the representative cases of regional innovation in Japan, Yufuin and Yubari, to grasp the way in which 'culture' plays its roles in the formation of the regional innovation system. Since culture has a role as a unique sector, such as art and content industry, as well as a community's style of life, this study tried to explore the aspects and ways of how culture can contribute to the establishment of regional innovation systems considering these distinctive levels. In drawing the implications of the case study, we found that special attention is required for the 'process of formation' of regional innovation systems. We also confirmed that the success of the core activities at each stage heavily relies on the culture of the region; in order to fully understand the relations, it is necessary to re-establish the existing concept of culture and cultural policy with a more holistic perspective.

• Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.199-229
• /
• 2013

S&T policy long treated as a sector policy is now solidifying its position as an infrastructure innovation policy that forms the foundation for many different policies. There is a growing need for enhancing the linkage and integration between policies by strengthening planning and coordination functions of the government organizations in charge of innovation policy. The major countries including Japan, U.S., Finland elevated planning and coordination roles and emphasized the interaction between S&T-society and innovation governance in response to emergence of the third-generation innovation policy. This study deal with several issues related STI governance from the post-catchup innovation and holistic innovation policy and examine arguments on governance design. And then new schemes and alternatives of 1)governance design for sustainability, 2)design of policy coordination and integration mechanism, 3)reorganization of S&T administration system will be discussed.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.56 no.7
• /
• pp.2850-2858
• /
• 2024

Amidst the uncertainties of climate policy, investing in nuclear energy technology emerges as a sustainable strategy, fostering innovation in a critical sector, while simultaneously addressing urgent environmental concerns and managing budgetary dynamics. Our investigation inspects the asymmetric influence of climate policy uncertainty on nuclear energy technology in the top 10 nations with the highest nuclear energy R&D budgets (Germany, Japan, China, France, USA, UK, India, South Korea, Russia, and Canada). Previous studies adopted panel data methods to evaluate the linkage between climate policy uncertainty and nuclear energy technology. Nonetheless, these investigations overlooked the variability in this association across various countries. Conversely, this investigation introduces an innovative tool, 'Quantile-on-Quantile' to probe this connection merely for every economy. This methodology concedes for a more accurate evaluation, offering a holistic global perspective and delivering tailored insights for individual countries. The findings uncover that climate policy uncertainty significantly reduces nuclear energy technology budgets across multiple quantiles in most selected economies. Additionally, our results highlight the asymmetries in the correlations between our variables across the nations. These findings stress the need for policymakers to conduct thorough assessments and skillfully manage climate policy uncertainty and nuclear energy budgets.

• IE interfaces
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.330-340
• /
• 2011

This research aims at conducting a comparative study on the relative efficiency of technologically innovative activities between manufacturing and service industries using data envelopment analysis (DEA). First, as an individual approach, efficiency of technologically innovative activities between manufacturing and service industries is separately evaluated. The results show that efficiency of both industries is similarly low, but patterns of technologically innovative activities differ from each other. Manufacturing industries usually do innovation focusing on various outputs with a single input, whereas service industries tend to do innovation emphasizing on a single output with mixed inputs. Second, as a holistic approach to both industries, efficiency is collectively assessed. The analysis demonstrates that efficiency of service industries is higher than that of manufacturing industries, and there are similar patterns of technologically innovative activities between both manufacturing and service industries. This study provides industrial managers with policy implications based on similarities and differences between manufacturing and service industries.

• World Technopolis Review
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.74-81
• /
• 2019

Cities will soon host two third of the population worldwide, and already today 80% of the world energy is used in the 20 largest cities. Urban areas create 80% of the greenhouse gas emission, so we should take care that urban areas are smart and sustainable as implementations have especially here the greatest impact. Smart Cities (SC) or Smart Sustainable Cities (SSC) are the actual concepts that describe methodologies how cities can handle the high density of citizens, efficiency of energy use, better quality of life indicators, high attractiveness for foreign investments, high attractiveness for people from abroad and many other critical improvements in a shifting environment. But if we talk about Entrepreneurship Ecosystem and Innovation, we do not see a lot of literature covering this topic within those SC/SSC concepts. It seems that 'Smart' implies that all is embedded, or isn't it properly covered as brick stone of SC/SSC concepts, as they are handled in another 'responsibility silo', meaning that the policy implementation of a Science and Technology Park (STP) is handled in another governing body than SC/SSC developments. If this is true, we will obviously miss a lot of synergy effects and economies of scale effects. Effects that we could have in case we stop the siloed approaches of STPs by following a more holistic concept of a Smart Sustainable City, covering also a continuous flow of innovation into the city, without necessarily always depend on large corporate SSC solutions. We try to argue that every SSC should integrate SP/STP concepts or better their features and services into their methodology. The very limited interconnectivity between these concepts within the governance models limits opportunities and performance in both systems. Redesigning the architecture of the governance models and accepting that we have to design a system-of-systems would support the possible technology flow for smart city technologies, it could support testbed functionalities and the public-private partnership approach with embedded business models. The challenge is of course in complex governance and integration, as we often face siloed approaches. But real SSC are smart as they are connecting all those unconnected siloes of stakeholders and technologies that are not yet interoperable. We should not necessarily follow anymore old greenfield approaches neither in SSCs nor in SP and STP concepts from the '80s that don't fit anymore, being replaced by holistic sustainability concepts that we have to implement in any new or revised SSC concepts. There are new demands for each SP/STP being in or close to an SC/SCC as they have a continuous demand for feeding the technology base and the application layer and should also act as testbeds. In our understanding, a big part of STP inputs and outputs are still needed, but in a revised and extended format. We know that most of the SC/STP studies claim the impact is still far from understood and often debated, therefore we must transform the concepts where SC/STPs are not own 'cities', but where they act as technology source and testbed for industry and new SSC business models, being part of the SC/STP concept and governance from the beginning.