| Governments highligh the reform of their governance systems by restructuring ministries and public bodies, by introducing new regulation. A recurrent topic in policy debates concerns the strengthening of participatory processes and more broadly the increase of stakeholder engagement. | |
| The largest share of initiatives in this policy area addresses international policy governance. This includes a wide range of initiatives such as strategies promoting the internationalisation of research and innovation activities and bilateral research and innovation cooperation agreements. | |
| Most policies tackle the national government, as a large share of initiatives establish national strategies or plans to provide orientation or coordination to government action. Such policies also tend to involve public research organisations. | |
| Strategies cover a wide range of national issues, often overlapping into other policy areas such as public research system and innovation in firms and innovative entrepreneurship. Common topics in strategies include research infrastructures, smart specialisation and social challenges. |
As part of their response to the 2019 EC-OECD STIP survey, countries indicated the main policy debates around the Governance of national STI policy (raw data included below in Annex A). The following debates figured prominently in country responses:
In several instances, governments announced the re-organisation of their ministries responsible for the public administration of STI policy. While these reforms generally follow national elections, at times they are also the result of national policy assessments. Brazil, for instance, highlights the merger of the Ministries of Communications and of Science, Technology and Innovation integration of the former two ministries, which is being furthered through a new organisational structure reflecting different areas of STI policy. Three countries reported merging research and innovation ministries with those responsible for higher education: Romania, South Africa and Thailand. Chile, Colombia and Costa Rica and Hungary highlight creating altogether new STI ministries in the past biennium.
Countries also underscore the reform of their governance systems at operational levels. Austria, for example, is examining a merger of its two existing councils, the Austrian Council for Research and Technology Development (RFTE) and the Austrian Science Board (ÖWR), with a view to improving cooperation and further inform policy with economic expertise. Greece has seen its General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT), its central authority for the design and management of STI policy, moved from the Ministry of Education to the Ministry of Development to emphasise its role in economic growth. The European Union created the European Innovation Council (EIC) as a one-stop shop innovation agency aiming to bring the most promising ideas from lab to real-world application and to help the most innovative start-ups and companies in their efforts to scale-up. In Latvia, the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) has begun consolidating its smaller administrative institutions and agencies to create a one-stop agency responsible for all science policy implementation. The United Kingdom organised its research councils and funding agencies under the umbrella of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), a single body in charge of directing research and innovation funding.
Besides reforming public bodies, countries have sought to improve their STI governance regulatory frameworks. In France, for example, new regulation allows universities and public research organisations to experiment with creating new joint institutional forms at the local level. Norway appointed a commission to review and propose changes to the regulations covering higher education. In Sweden, the governance in the university sector is under ongoing discussion: universities benefit from a large degree of autonomy, but recent debates consider whether full separation from the public sector should follow.
Some national debates raise the need to establish or re-inforce horizontal coordination arrangements. In Estonia, for example, the governance of R&D is primarily split between the Ministry of Education and Research and Ministry of Economic Affairs. The new joint strategy for R&D and innovation (RDI) and entrepreneurship has been developed, to address the limited cooperation between the two ministries. Japan established the Integrated Innovation Strategy Promotion Council in order to further strengthen cross-ministerial coordination, involving multiple policy areas that are closely related to innovation. South Africa created an inter-ministerial STI structure to facilitate policy coherence, prioritisation and alignment of STI policy with other government policies. Similarly, Thailand established in 2019 the National Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation Policy Council with the roles of setting a unified and systematic policy and strategy, approving the allocation of the national STI innovation budget to relevant organizations and monitoring the implementation of policy and strategy.
Some countries stress the importance of further coordinating with regional governments. In Australia, for example, aligning commonwealth, state and territory initiatives is a significant challenge that requires coordination efforts to maintain a coherent strategic direction. Colombia has observed weaknesses in the implementation of regional science policies and plans with locally available technology and innovation capacities. To address this, regional STI councils could play a critical role to identify challenges, set priorities and allocate of resources following such priorities. The Spanish Strategy of Science, Technology and Innovation 2021-2027 acts as the national smart specialisation strategy for Spain and maintains internal coherence with the regions' smart specialisation strategies.
A recurrent topic in national debates concerns the strengthening of participatory processes and more broadly the increase of stakeholder engagement. Japan, for example, stresses the need of horizontal cooperation among the public sector, private sector and other stakeholders as necessary to achieve sustainable development in the context of a declining birthrate and aging population. Slovenia drafted its new law on science and innovation including relevant stakeholders such as universities, research institutes, trade unions, research agencies, ministries and the broader civil society. In Spain, different stakeholders (including universities, RDI organisations, technological centres, funding organisations, SMEs and industries, associations, foundations) are contributing to the agenda-setting and policy formulation of the Strategy of Science, Technology and Innovation 2021-2027.
In various instances, governments seek the involvement of the private sector in the design and implementation of research and innovation policies. The Netherlands, for instance, traditionally co-designs STI policies with public and private partners, e.g. public support promoting SMEs adoption of new technologies is delegated to the ”top sector” private bodies of companies. Likewise, selecting grants for public-private collaboration (mainly targeting companies and applied research institutes and universities) is delegated to these bodies. Canada is experimenting with a similar approach for STI governance through the industry-led Supercluster Initiative. Each supercluster identifies cross-sector collaborative projects and subsequently provides funding and expert guidance for successful execution.
Governments often set gross expenditures in research and development (GERD) targets as strategic objectives directing national policy. Finland, for instance, plans drafting a roadmap aiming to raise STI investments to 4% of GDP by 2030. One of the goals of Austria's research financing act is to achieve a continuous increase in public and private research expenditure that will lead to a 3.76% of GDP target. Germany reports introducing an ambitious R&D tax that will substantially contribute to achieving the national target of spending 3.5% of GDP on R&D each year. Estonia's national competitiveness plan (Estonia 2020) proposes increasing the volume of investments in R&D to 3% of GDP (1% in the public sector and 2% in the private sector). Other national GERD targets include those of Spain (2% of GDP), Hungary (1.8% of GDP by 2020), Thailand (1.5% of GDP by 2022) and Kazakhstan (1% of GDP by 2025).
Countries often cite monitoring and evaluation exercises as crucial activities within governance systems. Finland, for instance, plans a comprehensive analysis on the state and direction of the research and educational system. Ireland conducted a mid-term review of the Innovation 2020 national strategy to acknowledge the changes in the policy environment and reaffirms its continued relevance for supporting research and innovation. As a key priority, Korea indicates the need to improve of the national R&D evaluation system by reinforcing qualitative evaluation and reducing the evaluation burden. The Norwegian government appointed a commission to review and propose changes to the regulations for the higher education system, including the delivery of a white paper on the steering of its institutions. In Spain, the government took further steps to develop an evaluation culture for public research and innovation policy, notably by including STI programmes in the Spending Review of the Independent Authority for Fiscal Responsibility (AIReF) and also through the impact evaluation commissioned by the Spanish Innovation Agency (CDTI).
Finally, some governments underline the usefulness of developing digital infrastructures to support STI implementation and monitoring. For example, Austria's research funding database is a major contribution to making the research funding system even more transparent, efficient and accurate. In Canada, all of the federal programs in support of business innovation, as well as other government innovation supports from provinces and territories, are accessible through the Innovation Digital Platform, which connects firms to the programs best suited to their needs. Sweden is exploring the use of such tools, as mobilising the public administration for the digital transformation is under discussion.
Figure 1 shows the number of policy initiatives reported within themes belonging to the Governance policy area. The largest number of policies address International STI governance. This set includes a wide range of initiatives varying in scope, including strategies promoting the internationalisation of research and innovation activities, bilateral research and innovation cooperation agreements, participation in multilateral initiatives, and joint infrastructures or research centres. The second most recurrent theme is National STI plan or strategy, also capturing a variety of country agendas that set the national priorities for STI activities. The third most frequent theme is Strategic policy intelligence, grouping high-level expert groups or advisory councils, regulations related to evidence-based policy making, scoreboards, technology assessments and foresight exercises, among others. This theme is followed by Horizontal policy coordination (e.g. inter-ministerial councils and priority-setting mechanisms) and, lastly, Evaluation and impact assessment that captures key regulations, bodies and initiatives in charge of setting the country's overarching evaluation practices and mechanisms.
Figure 2 indicates the frequency in which Governance policy initiatives address target groups (actors in the STI system). As it is to be expected, most policies are addressed to the National government. As shown further below, very often these initiatives establish national strategies or plans, which seek to provide orientation or coordination to government action. The next more frequently raised target groups are Public research institutes and Higher education institutes, also frequently addressed by overarching national strategies. Established researchers are relatively less often directly targeted compared to public research organisations. Firms are the most frequently targeted private actor in the STI system. Companies are addressed to similar extents regardless of their age or size, though SMEs are at times emphasised in policies. After this target group we find another set of research actors, i.e. Postdocs and other early-career researchers, Private research and development lab and PhD students. After public and private actors we find that a number of policies seek to involve Civil society as a whole, as is the case with Subnational government bodies (regional governance). Other target groups addressed by more than 100 initiatives include Entrepreneurs and knowledge intermediaries such as Incubators, accelerators, science parks or technoparks.
The most frequently used policy instrument is National strategies, agendas and plans (Figure 3). These strategies cover a wide range of national issues, often overlapping into other policy areas such as Public research system and Innovation in firms and innovative entrepreneurship. Keywords indicate that research infrastructures, smart specialisation and social challenges are common topics covered in national strategies. Other frequent instruments include Policy intelligence (e.g. evaluations, benchmarking and forecasts), used to advance policy learning with a view of improving the design and implementation of policies or seeking to fine-tune STI governance arrangements. Horizontal STI coordination bodies are often put in place to ensure the coherence of STI policy making by setting up mechanisms to co-ordinate different levels of governments. Another noteworthy observation of the figure is that keywords suggest that Project grants for public research are employed to promote international research cooperation.
Governance initiatives typically do not have any budget expenditures (Figure 4). This is particularly the case for National strategies, agendas and plans, which generally aim to set priorities for public investment in STI and identify the focus of government reforms without funding any specific actions. Initiatives reporting yearly budget expenditures fall within the Less than 1M and 1M-5M ranges, often dedicated to cover operational costs of a government body or a mechanism associated to the initiative. This includes monitoring arrangements that provide scoreboards and foresights as forms of policy intelligence to inform decision-making. Initiatives with 100M EUR yearly budget expenditure or higher include highly strategic programmes funding research infrastructures and schemes addressing climate change, sustainability and societal challenges (see keywords).
Figure 5 shows that Portugal has reported the largest number of initiatives in this policy area, followed by Brazil, the European Union and Colombia. The chart shows only the number of policy initiatives reported by countries and gives no indication of their scale or scope. The figure should therefore be interpreted with care. Clicking on a given bar in the chart will bring you to the corresponding country dashboard for Governance policies.
Table 1 contains the answers provided by countries (and other entities) to the following question: Briefly, what are the main ongoing issues of debate around how national STI policy is governed in your country? You may use the table's search box to filter the data by country or keyword. You may also dowload the data in Excel format.
Table 1. Policy debates in the Governance policy area
| Response | |
|---|---|
| Argentina | The governance of Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) policy in Argentina is grounded in historical processes of emergence and institutionalization of STI developments in a federal country, mostly funded by the public sector. Pillar institutions were created in the late 50s, including the National Council on Science and Technology (CONICET) and its Scientific Technological Centers (CCTs) that span all over the country, the National Commission of Atomic Energy (CNEA), the National Institute for Agricultural Technology (INTA) and the National Institute for Industrial Technology (INTI). Also at this time, national universities set up full time positions for scholars devoted essentially to basic research. In 1958 and under the umbrella of the Ministry of Education, the Secretary of Science and Technology (SICYT, Secretaría de Innovación, Ciencia y Tecnología) was created as the main governmental entity devoted to promote national policies in S&T. Public bodies in other Ministries were established under a mission-oriented approach to encourage applied research and technology development in Health, Mining, Agriculture, Energy, Foreign Affairs and Defense. In 1996, the National Agency for the Promotion of Science and Technology (ANPCYT) emerged as a decentralized body with two funding instruments: the Fund for Scientific and Technological Research (FONCyT) and the Argentine Technological Fund (FONTAR) -a decade later, the Fund for the Promotion of Software Industry (FONSOFT) and the Sectorial Argentine Fund (FONARSEC) were also incorporated. In 2007, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Productive Innovation (MINCYT, former SICYT) was created. It was conceived as the main responsible political body for the governance of the STI national system, which comprises not only political advisory bodies, legislative commissions, universities, and organisms, at national, provincial and municipal level, but also any other entity that aims to carry out essential activities linked to science, technological development, innovation, and capacity building of human resources. As stated by its foundational Act (Law 25.467), one of MINCYT´s main duties is to promote and guide R&D in strategic areas by establishing a National STI Plan. To encourage synergies at national and provincial levels in priority fields set by the STI plan, three key structures were established under the MINCYT: 1) the Scientific Technological Cabinet (GACTEC), chaired by the head of the Cabinet of Ministers, which constitutes an inter-ministerial and interdisciplinary setting that also channels interaction with both Congress chambers, articulating consultations, exchanging information, discussing resource allocation; 2) the Inter-institutional Council on Science and Technology (CICYT), coordinated by the Secretary of Scientific Technological Articulation (SACT), in which all relevant actors of the STI national system are being represented; and 3) the Federal Council on Science and Technology (COFECYT), aims to promote regional policies with special focus on less-favoured provinces for a harmonious development of the country. Links with private sector are encouraged by ANPCYT´s funding instruments (see above), as well as CONICET´s Network of Technological Transfer Offices, and universities´ Units of Technological Transfer (UVTs) devoted to provide technical assistance on project management and the commercialisation of research. |
| Australia | The debate around national science, technology and innovation (STI) policy governance has focused on the need for increasingly strategic and co-ordinated approaches to ensure that effort is focused on achieving national priorities. In Australia, government science and research activities follow a hybrid model, with responsibilities distributed across government and located where most relevant. Hence, maintaining strategic direction requires good co-ordination. The Australian Government will continue to drive STI policy systematically and strategically, informed by the latest evidence and in areas of national priority. Aligning Commonwealth, state and territory initiatives is a significant issue in this regard. Under the aegis of the Council of Australian Government, the Industry and Skills Council has agreed on a set of common objectives to guide a nationally consistent approach. Initiatives such as the National Innovation and Science Agenda; the National Science and Technology Council; Innovation and Science Australia; the National Science Statement; and the National Science and Research Priorities have been developed or implemented to provide strategic guidance on STI policy governance. |
| Austria | In its RTI strategy 2020, adopted in 2011, the Austrian Government set itself the goal of leading Austria into the group of European Innovation leaders with a view to sustainably secure and develop employment and prosperity. In order to achieve this goal, in August 2018 the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research, the Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology and the Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs developed a Future Initiative for Research, Technology and Innovation in Austria, which has the following components: New RTI strategy until 2030 Based on the principles of excellence and competition as well as impact and openness, a new RTI strategy until 2030 will be developed. Among other input, it will refer to the results of the OECD Review on Innovation Policy, which has been submitted in December 2018. The high-level working group “Task Force RTI” has been commissioned by the Council of Ministers to prepare a process and timetable for the new RTI strategy, which will be finalised in 2020. Five thematic working groups have been established: - Research Infrastructures - Human Resources - Internationalization - EU-Missions and EU-Partnerships - Applied Research and Impact on Economy and Society Excellence Initiative for top-level research in the field of basic research Following a recommendation of the OECD review of innovation policy in Austria, the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research will create an "Excellence Initiative" for top-level research in the field of basic research. This Excellence Initiative will be part of the new RTI strategy 2030. Research Financing Act In order to ensure long-term, strategic planning of research funding, to make the governance of the Austrian research and innovation system more efficient and to achieve the continuous increase in public and private research expenditure aimed at achieving the 3.76% target, a research financing act is required. This is intended to: - Set a legally qualified – if not binding – goal to increase RTI budgets. - Make RTI budgets available for a revolving three years’ period. The present system allows only for one year while the four years’ budgetary framework is only indicative. - Provide for three years’ performance contracts with the key research performing and funding organisations. There is a number of technical issues at present leading to a very fragmented system of short term contracts. Towards this purpose, in August 2018 the Council of Ministers mandated the Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology, in agreement with the other ministries represented in the high-level working group “Task Force RTI”, to develop a Research Financing Act including a Pact for Research. Accordingly, a bill has been put forward in September 2019 and is now under review. After the 2019 general elections, the incoming government will have to present a respective proposal to parliament. Merger of existing advisory bodies (RTI) The OECD review of innovation policy in Austria recommended the establishment of a single Science, Research and Innovation Council. Therefore the Austrian Federal Government hast stated in its new programme that it is examining a merger of the two existing councils, the Austrian Council for Research and Technology Development (RFTE) and the Austrian Science Board (ÖWR), possibly only with a view to improving cooperation, supplemented by economic expertise. The mandate of the ERA Council Forum Austria expired in 2019. Research funding database Under the auspices of the Federal Ministry of Finance, a project team was appointed with the planning and preparatory work for the implementation of a research-funding database. This also responds to a request made by the Court of Audit in its report on research funding in Austria, published on 24 June 2016. The research funding database is a major contribution to making the research funding system even more transparent, efficient and accurate. |
| Belgium (Brussels authority) | A new government was formed in July 2019, which means budgetary, as well as strategic negotiations, are still ongoing at the time of preparing this text (November 2019). The outline below is therefore subject to change. A main governance priority for 2020 is the drafting of a new Regional Innovation Plan. This plan will build on the region’s current strategy that was set for 2016 until 2020, and which defines a series of strategic axes. Innoviris (the Brussels regional institute for research and innovation) will conduct a consultation of the regional R&D ecosystem in order to update the current thematic priorities and the concomitant regional smart specialisation strategy. The operational plan for the new ERDF programming will also be drawn up in parallel, aiming to develop a coherent and structurally embedded innovation strategy. For both plans a monitoring and evaluation framework will be drawn up. Moreover, to ensure a comprehensive action perimeter, the legal framework has been updated very recently. Indeed, since spring 2019, two new implementing decrees entered into force. This includes, for instance, the recently created industrial spin-out programme and a programme that allows for the secondment of researchers/experts to small enterprises. The new secretary of state competent for research and innovation is currently translating the coalition agreement into a more specific policy note focused on RDI. Different transition paths towards a low carbon, circular and inclusive economy will be, inter alia, the subject of a substantive reflection. This also includes, for instance, a reflection on the creation of social entrepreneurship support schemes. This ambitious strategy is also complemented by the preparation of a regional artificial intelligence (AI) strategy, which will be designed in a way to develop an ecosystem in AI that is compatible with the resolution of environmental and social challenges. |
| Belgium (Federal Government authority) | National STI policy aims to take into account new challenges like AI, demographic changes, globalisation, digitalisation, the energy transition, climate change, and sustainable development. To face those important challenges, various initiatives have been decided and will be implemented in the near future, including: - developing expertise inside the Federal science policy office (Belspo), - launching programmes on emerging topics, - creating a climate platform, - creating a consultative body concerning R&I in the digital world, - developing a federal ScienceCloud, and - creating an autonomous space agency. The previous government planned to reform the federal administration in charge of science policies (Belspo). The objectives were to: - increase the autonomy of the federal scientific research institutes; - create an autonomous space agency; and - integrate the Federal science policy office into another federal administratio These reforms are still pending. The new government has to decide whether they want to execute them or decide upon other reforms (or none at all). |
| Belgium (Flanders authority) | In its policy memorandum 2019-2024, the VARIO (Flemish Advisory Council for Innovation and Entrepreneurship) calls for the development of an efficient and targeted governance framework, amongst others to: - Speed up the development of a long term vision on innovation and translate this into a strategy with specific objectives. - Strengthen systems thinking, transversality, coordination and structural cooperation within the Flemish government to embed innovation in its DNA. Put the intentions in Vision 2050 into practice. - Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the support instruments, individually and as part of a system. - Make decision-making more evidence-based. In response to the first two bullet points, the minister for Economy, Science and Innovation, in her policy note covering 2019-2024, has unveiled a mission-oriented policy around 6 transversal projects, all of which contain elements of STI policy. 1. Under a thriving local entrepreneurship, initiatives such as Smart City Flanders can be found. Flanders has the ambition to become a frontrunner in this domain. 2. An integrated industrial policy for the future will ensure the competitiveness and productivity of Flanders’ manufacturing industry. A more strategic approach to IPCEI’s will be developed. Flanders is participating in the European Commission’s Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEI) programme on Batteries and has a keen interest in the IPCEI on Hydrogen, in which it wants to become a world leader. 3. (Sub-)regional smart specialisation needs to ensure that the innovation potential of all areas in Flanders is tapped into. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) will be instrumental in implementing this policy. 4. An integrated agenda for digital entrepreneurship and innovation should allow Flanders’ top researchers and digital economy to take a leading position internationally. Attention is given to artificial intelligence and cybersecurity (research, deployment and supporting measures), industry 4.0, and the support to digitisation in other policy domains (transport, education, etc.). An area covering 5G-networks should create an enabling environment for innovations. 5. An ambitious plan for climate innovation should lead to solutions for a low-carbon industry and society. 6. A maximal circular economy should cut back waste and safeguard resources for the future. Research and innovative business models are central to this project. The policy will be governed by three central principles: - Ambition: for example, Flanders wants to become one of the top five innovation regions in Europe. Excellence is the basis of regional science policy. Scale-ups are encouraged to conquer the world. - Impact: instruments and policies will be evaluated on the impact they generate, both economically and societally (thus responding to the last two bullets above). - Cooperation: the minister will seek to develop the quadruple helix model in which knowledge institutions, enterprises, governments and citizens work closely together. More cooperation between disciplines and sectors will also be stimulated. |
| Belgium (Wallonia authority) | One main debate concerns the complexity of the Walloon STI system. It appears that this system offers many tools that are managed by a variety of operators. This wide range of aid covers the entire technology readiness level (TRL) scale, and, if overlaps have been identified, these usually result from differences between the target groups and different objectives of the aid. However, for an outside observer, the Walloon system appears fragmented and its coherence is hardly perceptible. In addition, the missions of the operators are defined with insufficient precision, which adds complexity to the system. It is necessary to highlight the relevant aids by objective pursued (industrial research, experimental development, research in partnership, prototyping, intellectual property, marketing, etc.). It is also important to highlight the links between the various aids to identify those that can be used successively during the life cycle of a project. Highlighting relays that could be implemented with economic policy instruments would also be useful for the TRL steps closest to commercialization. For the Walloon Science Policy Council (“Pole Politique Scientifique” or PPS), the development by the public authorities of a strategic management of the research, development and innovation (RDI) system is an essential element. This would allow the Walloon government to pilot the system, to adapt it quickly to the needs of the various actors, and to measure the impacts of the instruments put in place on the quality of research and on the socio-economic development of Wallonia. Accordingly, the Walloon government intends to enhance good governance, by continuing the digitization and administrative simplification of RDI policy, and by carrying out systematic evaluation. |
| Brazil | Public debates around national Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) policies have been influenced by larger political issues deriving from the 2019 presidential elections. The new administration came into office in 2019 with new visions on the role of government in a broad array of activities. Although the main pillars of the national STI policies have not been substantially changed, a completely new set of questions has arisen on policy management and implementation. The National STI Strategy continues to set out the main policy ambitions and still provides the main guidelines for the design of STI initiatives. The strategy is based on a fundamental axis: the expansion, consolidation and integration of the National STI System. Expansion implies increasing research institutions, human resources dedicated to R&D and available research infrastructure. Consolidation involves preserving and improving past accomplishments, whereas integration makes reference to a new and improved institutional framework that facilitates and streamlines the coordination and cooperation among different agents of the STI system. This main axis is supported by five pillars: (i) fostering basic and technological research; (ii) improving research infrastructures; (iii) increasing research and innovation funding; (iv) developing human resources; and, (iv) creating incentives for innovation in private firms. The new administration taking office in 2019, however, has brought a new vision on the role of government, particularly regarding how government policies and activities should be managed. Although many of the proposed reforms have yet to be implemented (some of them are still being designed) there is a strong debate focused on a more efficient and streamlined public administration. This has been partly motivated by persistent fiscal restrictions. While budget constraints keep limiting the amount of public support for R&D, the search for new sources of funding has gained importance. On the one hand, there is strong debate on how to secure government funding for public research, human capital building and for other research activities that are not attractive to private investors. On the other hand, discussions have emerged on how to attract private funding for R&D activities. New proposals range from the implementation of endowment funds (now regulated by Law no. 13 800, 04/JAN/2019) to joint research projects with the private sector. In this context, debates have also focused on the need to pursue new mission-oriented initiatives involving private companies and public research institutions. On the policy management front, the new government has proposed broad horizontal changes in public administration, known as the “administrative reform”. Most of these reforms have to be discussed and approved in Congress. The new proposals seek to decentralize many policy decisions and management, and look for a more efficient and streamlined public sector. Some of these trends have already impacted the federal management of national STI policies. For example, the merger of the Ministries of Communications and of Science, Technology and Innovation has been maintained. Further integration of the former two ministries is now being pursued through a new organisational structure that reflects different areas of STI policy . In particular, administrative units were designed to focus on: (i) basic research; (ii) applied research; and, (iii) technology development and application. These are supervised by a planning and project-coordinating unit. This new organisational structure aims to improve the translation of scientific knowledge into objective results in bringing solutions to enduring societal challenges. |
| Bulgaria | The National Development Programme BULGARIA 2030 is the main strategic document in the hierarchy of the national programming documents, which determines the vision and overall goals of development policies in all sectors of government, including their territorial dimensions. The document sets out three strategic goals, five development areas (axes) and 13 national priorities. BULGARIA 2030 embarks on a deliberate analysis of the socio-economic development of the country after its accession to the European Union, aiming to identify key areas of concern and gaps in the country's development policies. The document is discussed and agreed with the socio-economic partners within the Economic and Social Council and the National Tripartite Cooperation Council. Following the approval by the Council of Ministers of the vision, goals and priorities of BULGARIA 2030, the government intends to detail the policy areas and prepare an indicative financial framework, ex ante impact assessment and a mechanism to monitor and control the implementation of the Strategy. |
| Canada | In 2016, the Government of Canada launched the Fundamental Science Review to help ensure that federal support for research is strategic and effective and that it delivers the greatest benefits possible to the research community and the Canadians whose lives are enriched by its discoveries. In response to this review, the Government of Canada has implemented a new suite of supports and governance mechanisms, such as: - A Chief Science Advisor was appointed to ensure that government science is fully available to the public. This also involves ensuring that government scientists can speak freely about their work and that scientific analyses are considered when the government makes decisions. - A new Canada Research Coordinating Committee was created to improve the coordination efforts of Canada's granting agencies and the Canada Foundation for Innovation, ensuring that Canada's researchers have the support they need to succeed. - To make federal investments in third-party science and research more effective and principles-based, a new Strategic Science Fund will be the Government’s key tool to support third-party science and research organizations going forward. - The Government has further supported science by making an investment of $4 billion to support the work of researchers and provide them access to the state-of-the-art tools and facilities they need. Firms and innovators need a clear point of entry to a streamlined suite of relevant business innovation programs that meet their specific needs at different stages of growth. When looking at the suite of supports for business innovation, the Government has taken a new approach for how it is governed: - The horizontal review of business innovation and clean technology programs across every federal department during 2017 resulted in an increase in overall funding for innovation support programs, along with a reduction in the number of separate business innovation programs—from 92 to about 35. The new suite of programs supports firms at all points on the innovation continuum. - All of the federal programs in support of business innovation, as well as other government innovation supports from provinces and territories, are accessible through the Innovation Canada digital platform, which connects firms to the programs best suited to their needs. Finally, the Government of Canada has adopted an experimental approach for ST&I governance, through the industry-led Supercluster Initiative. Each supercluster identifies cross-sector collaborative projects, and then provides funding and expert guidance for successful execution. The superclusters support all aspects of the innovation continuum by developing talent pools, encouraging greater business investment in R&D, strengthening supply chains and relationships between firms, and attracting anchor firms. |
| Chile | The Ministry of Science, Technology, Knowledge and Innovation (Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología, Conocimiento e Innovación) started operations in October 2019. Its main mission is to promote and strengthen Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) derived from scientific-technological research and development. The Ministry is in charge of advising the President and collaborating in the design, formulation, coordination, implementation and evaluation of policies, plans and programs. The new Ministry is the governing body of the National System of Science, Technology and Innovation, ensuring the coordination, consistency and coherence of policies, plans and programs. It also promotes inter-ministerial and inter-regional coordination and collaboration, the development of joint initiatives within the public sector and public-private cooperation. |
| China | Highly ranked issues in the Governance agenda include improving the allocation mode of science and technology resources, making full use of various economic resources, and improving the efficiency of science and technology inputs and outputs. Since 2014, the Chinese government has successively introduced several programmes related to the reform of the S&T system, which have been welcomed by the majority of scientific and technological workers. These programmes include "the plan to deepen the management reform of the central financial science and technology plan (special projects, funds, etc.)", the "implementation plan to deepen the reform of the science and technology system", the "several opinions on increasing knowledge value-oriented distribution policy", and the "guiding opinions on the promotion of classified personnel evaluation mechanism reform". In March 2018, the State Council integrated the responsibilities of the Ministry of Science and Technology and the State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs, and re-established the Ministry of Science and Technology as a component of the State Council. |
| Colombia | Colombia is currently having important debates around the governance of its national framework for Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) policy. At the centrepiece is the creation of the STI Ministry, its role on designing and formulating STI policies and improving institutional governance. The Ministry is being created within the transformation of Colciencias, Colombia’s main STI funding agency. Another key discussion focuses on the role of a National Council of STI, as an instance of consultation and definition of policies (currently the Advisory Council for STI leads this role). The country is carrying out an Expert Committee known as the "Misión de Sabios", composed of 47 experts in the public and private sector working on research and development activities. There are eight thematic focuses to propose the roadmap for STI and Education for the next 25 years. Regarding governance, the current articulation between the National STI policy framework and the Competitiveness and Innovation policy framework has been discussed. This includes instances of coordination and complementarity, as well as the articulation of Departmental (regional governments) science policies and plans with available technology and innovation capacities. Another key discussion is the role of the Departmental Councils of STI in identifying challenges, setting priorities and the allocation of resources following such priorities. |
| Costa Rica | There are two main ongoing policy debates: 1) The creation of a new innovation agency to improve Costa Rica's STI governance that efficiently shapes policy design, implementation, delivery and evaluation. At the beginning of October 2019 the country engaged in a legislative process to reform its National Council for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICIT) into a Research and Innovation Agency. If the bill is approved, the new Agency will be responsible for the implementation of different national instruments and programs that aim to boost research, innovation, human capital and start-ups. 2) The country has undertaken a debate about digital technologies in the context of the so-called fourth industrial revolution (4IR). To move forward in this regard, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Telecommunications (MICITT) launched in October 2018 the Digital Transformation Strategy: The Bicentennial of Costa Rica 4.0. This strategy contains the country’s vision and proposes the lines of actions needed to drive Costa Rican society towards the new digital economy and to address country challenges, by making a better use of digital technologies in the government, the private sector and society as a whole. 4IR requires new approaches in practically all STI policies. Chambers of commerce, ministries and civil society recently started debating the governance of this transformation. |
| Croatia | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: Several important strategic documents on research and innovation were adopted in 2014, including the National Innovation Strategy; the Strategy for Education, Science and Technology; and the Croatian Research and Innovation Infrastructures Roadmap. The Smart Specialisation Strategy (S3 Strategy) was adopted in 2016. These strategic documents form the basis for the governance of the Croatian national innovation system. In keeping with the S3 Strategy, Croatia is in the process of establishing a National innovation Council, whose role will be to monitor the implementation of the measures envisaged under the different strategies. One of the main governance challenges facing Croatia is the lack of monitoring, resulting in a lack of continuous co-ordination and co-operation between the implementing bodies at different levels. |
| Cyprus | A new Research and Innovation (R&I) governance system was established in October 2018, following its formal adoption by the Council of Ministers. The new system responds to the need for an integrated and effective governance for the design and implementation of national R&I strategies and policies. It has the main aim for R&I to become a key driver for economic growth, competitiveness and social prosperity. The system includes new institutions and bodies, such as the National Board for Research and Innovation (NBRI), the Chief Scientist and the Ministerial R&I Coordinators' Committee. The Directorate of Research, Innovation and Life Long Learning, part of the Directorate General for European Programmes, Coordination and Development (DG ECPD), is in charge of R&I policy and provides support to the Chief Scientist and the NBRI. It also assists for the design and coordination of R&I policy issues and coordinates, supports and monitors the implementation of the national R&I Strategy. The Research and Innovation Foundation (RIF) is the government’s executive arm for R&I. Furthermore, the Government of Cyprus has prepared a draft legislation for the establishment of a Deputy Ministry for Innovation and Digital Policy. According to the draft legislation, the Deputy Ministry's competences relevant to R&I are the following: (i) design, coordinate and implement the national R&I strategy and supervise the operations of the national R&I governance system; (ii) promote start-ups and digital entrepreneurship; and, (iii) provide guidance and supervise the RIF. The draft legislation was approved by the Council of Ministers and was transmitted to the House of Representatives for its final adoption. The Government aims for the Deputy Ministry to be established and become operational in January 2020. |
| Czech Republic | In the Czech Republic, competences in the research, development and innovation (RDI) support system and its governance are defined by the Act No. 130/2002 Coll., on the “Support of Research, Experimental Development and Innovation from Public Funds and on Amendments to Some Related Acts”, which came into force and effect in 2002. This Act has been amended several times, and in 2018, another technical amendment was drafted, addressing primarily the change in approach towards the assessment of research organisations. This draft amendment, which was prepared by the main actors in RDI system under the coordination of the RDI Council, was approved by the Government in May 2019 and submitted for further legislative procedures. Preparing this technical amendment has highlighted a need for comprehensive changes in the legislation underpinning the RDI support system. The available scope for technical amendments provides too little room for thorough reform, e.g. on the need for a new approach to boosting innovation support, which are subsequently set aside. However, these broader issues are now included in the debate on preparing a follow-up amendment of a larger scope to the law. This is currently one of the main issue of policy debate on the “National Research, Development and Innovation Policy of the Czech Republic 2021+”. Policy discussions also focus on other RDI policy-making areas of high importance, notably the overall level of RDI expenditure, where the Czech Republic is approaching the EU average, because of rising expenditures in recent years. However, to ensure the benefits of this investment arise, it is necessary to properly implement and combine different tools and sources of RDI funding, both of a public and private nature. Also discussed is a proposal on how to increase the share of institutional support for the long-term strategic development of research organisations. Besides public resources for RDI, the private sector plays an important role, accounting for more than half of the total expenditure on RDI in the Czech Republic. The government aims to set conditions that will motivate enterprises, mainly SMEs and start-ups, to make even larger investments in RDI, through its policy measures of both direct and indirect RDI support. |
| Denmark | The former Danish government published in 2017 a strategy called “Denmark – Ready to seize future opportunities”. In the strategy, the former government outlined its objectives for future research and innovation, including strengthening technological research, reviewing the allocation of research funding to the universities, and exploring how to create better career opportunities for (young) researchers. A new government took office in 2019. It acknowledges that education and research play a central role in identifying solutions to major societal challenges. Thus, among other things, it is the government’s ambition to strengthen research, safeguard freedom of research, and fulfil the Barcelona target, so that public investment in research reaches a minimum 1% of GDP. Also high on the government’s agenda is gender equality in order to enhance the talent pool. However, the most central issue, which continues to be debated, are the environment/environmental challenges, and the Danish government has proposed an overall target of reducing greenhouse gases in 2030 by 70% compared to 1990 levels. This target is supported by a majority of the Danish political parties, and is expected to be part of an upcoming act on climate. An example of how the focus on the environment affects research is the latest agreement on the distribution of the research reserve. The research reserve is a minor part of the public's total investment in research and this year the total sum of money was 1.925 billion DKK. From the total sum, the parliament prioritised 1.5 billion DKK to the theme of green transition. Recently, the major commercial foundations, such as Novo Nordic Foundation, which invests heavily in Danish research, have also echoed the need for research to support the green transition. |
| Estonia | The wider goals of Estonian research and development (R&D) are based on the competitiveness plan Estonia 2020, which was approved in 2011 and sets the goal of increasing productivity per employee to 73% by the year 2015 and to 80% by the year 2020 compared to the European Union average. To and achieve this, the plan proposes to increase the volume of investments in R&D to 3% of GDP (1% in the public sector and 2% in the private sector). The strategic development of research and development is directed by the R&D strategy, Knowledge Based Estonia 2014–2020, which combines, in addition to the activities of the Ministry of Education and Research, the respective courses of action of other ministries. In addition to the Ministry of Education and Research, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications contributes the most to R&D activities within the framework of the Estonian Entrepreneurship Growth Strategy. The Estonian R&D governance system needs further development to coordinate R&D policy adequately at the national level. To increase the research-intensiveness of society and the influence of R&D, all national policies should support the development of a knowledge-based society and research-intensive economy, and R&D policy should form a coherent system. In accordance with the Research and Development Organisation Act (TAKS), ministries are responsible for planning, organising and financing research and development that is necessary for their respective areas of government. The Government of the Republic, advised by the Research and Development Council (TAN), should ensure inter-ministerial cooperation in implementing national R&D policy. However, coordination of inter-ministerial cooperation in R&D has been insufficient so far. This is reflected in the fragmentation of R&D funding, which limits the resolution of cross-sectoral policy issues, and impedes the development of best practices. The skills of planning and using R&D are uneven, which undermine the ability of the state to be a demanding and conscious R&D contracting entity. From 2016 the positions of scientific councillors were introduced in the ministries to advice them on research issues and participate in the planning and implementation of the ministry’s R&D, both domestically and internationally. The initiative has led to significant activation of ministerial R&D activities, but further actions are needed to strengthen a common understanding on R&D issues, improve coordination and share best practices. General R&D policy capacity and attention is split between the Ministry of Education and Research and Ministry of Economic Affairs. So far, the limited cooperation between the two ministries has left a gap where other countries would have an R&D-related innovation policy. However, as the new joint strategy for R&D, innovation (RDI) and entrepreneurship is developed, the joint initiatives of the two ministries are expected to close the gap. The 2019 peer review of the Estonian RDI system commissioned by the European Commission emphasises the lack of ‘directionality’ in the Estonian RDI system. Specifically, a widely-agreed vision on the directions of future development is missing, as is a corresponding set of priorities to build national competitive advantage at the level of research organisations, higher education, ecosystems and clusters. Even as Estonia has defined its Smart Specialisation, it needs further strengthening. In addition, thematic priorities emerging from the international trend towards addressing societal challenges in RDI policy still need to be considered. While Estonia alone can have little influence on the necessary transformations, it can decide where to focus its own work on societal challenges in light of Estonian needs, bringing Estonian comparative advantages to bear in chosen niches. |
| European Union | The next EU Framework Programme for research and innovation (Horizon Europe) will cover the period 2021-2027. Its main novelties include: - The creation of the European Innovation Council (EIC), a one-stop shop for innovation to bring the most promising ideas from lab to real-world application and help the most innovative start-ups and companies to scale-up. - The definition of six clusters for cross-disciplinary and collaborative research and innovation (as opposed to the Horizon 2020 sector-based approach. - The adoption of EU-wide missions with ambitious goals tackling some of the biggest problems affecting our daily lives in five areas, i.e. adaptation to climate change, including societal transformation; (ii) cancer; (iii) healthy oceans, seas and coastal and inland waters; (iv) climate-neutral and smart cities; and, (v) soil health and food. - A new approach to European partnerships streamlining the type and number of public-public and public-private partnerships. The implementation of Horizon Europe will introduce a new co-creation/co-design governance approach, with the early involvement of Member States, extensive exchanges with the European Parliament and broad consultation with stakeholders and the public at large. This will lead to the publication in 2020 of a Strategic Plan that will set out the key strategic orientations for the first years of implementation of Horizon Europe, effectively bridging policy objectives and support actions. The governance of Horizon Europe will therefore become more cross-disciplinary (e.g. cluster on climate, energy and mobility); more mission-oriented (e.g. mission on cancer) and more impact-driven (e.g. missions, partnerships and strategic planning). At the same time, the governance of Horizon Europe will become more inclusive through extensive exchanges with Member States and the European Parliament, and broader consultation and engagement of stakeholders and citizens. |
| Finland | The new government programme for 2019-2023 sets several objectives for R&D policies. The key is to put Finland’s RDI investment on a growth track. A roadmap will be drawn up to raise RDI investments to 4 per cent of GDP by 2030 and to make Finland the world’s best environment for innovation and experiments. Steps will be taken to build a stronger model for public-private partnership in innovation. Despite increases in public expenditure in the programme and the first state budget for 2020, the available funding and measures face the risk of being insufficient. Private funding is of greatest significance to meet the 4 % target, a goal which necessitates fluent and effective interaction with the private sector. A strategy for sustainable growth, and a cross-sectoral programme to promote exports and international growth to 2030 are other initiatives to strengthen RDI-activity in Finland. The government programme includes a pledge for knowledge-based policy-making, too, with deeper cooperation with the scientific community. The role of the Research and Innovation Council (RIC) has been identified as important, but in recent years RIC has lost its role in coordinating national R&D efforts, a function that was characteristic of Finland in the past decades. RIC is set to start its work under the new government, but its role and significance remain to be seen. The national coordination of R&D policy remains a challenge, a concern which pertains to sectoral R&D policies as well as the roles of different national funding organizations. R&D policy centred around phenomena, as well as missions, is both an opportunity and a challenge. This question revolves partly around the right mix of bottom-up and top-down policy actions. The regional dimension of R&D policy includes both tensions and opportunities. On the one hand there has been consolidation and specialization in the HEI field, and many of the country's regions have own strengths and specialization in international business and R&D. On the other hand the HEIs remain numerous, and the eastern part of the country is lagging behind in economic development, processes which cause friction in an urbanizing country of a fairly strong regional policy tradition. One major effort in research and education components of STI policy will be the forming of Government report on education and research in 2020. Despite its modest title, the government report will be of very important strategic value, including a comprehensive analysis on the state and direction of the research and educational system. There is also debate as to how the voice of higher education institutions and research institutes could be strengthened, and how the role of representative organizations (UNIFI, Arene, Tulanet) could be developed. |
| France | a) Regulation supporting experimental institutional forms: In order to ease amalgamation or even merging of existing institutions for both teaching and research activities, new institutional forms seemed to be necessary. The regulation of December 12, 2018 allows universities and public research organisations to experiment with creating new joint institutional forms at the local level to address their missions. New structures gain significant weight to define particular strategy of the site, with new own identity, and to articulate their specific project of the site with government priorities. . https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTex... As of 2019 a renewed process of contractual dialogue between the State and the universities and bodies under the supervision of the Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation was established in order to enhance the mobilisation of public research actors. This renewed contractual dialogue aims to strengthen the major research universities on the basis of co-constructed objectives between institutions and national research organizations with a goal to intensify their local strategic coordination. Public research organisations are now fully involved in this strategic and programmatic coordination at the territorial level. https://www.performance-publique.budget.... b) Multi-year research programming bill: In a context of global competition, the French Government wants to place its support to research into a multi-year programming law. In early 2019, the Prime Minister asked the Minister of Higher Education, Research and Innovation, to explore the establishment of a new law for orienting and the multi-year programming of research. While the bill is still in the process of being defined, it is expected to encompass budgetary measures and simplification measures and, according to arbitration, a strategy to be articulated at national and subnational levels. This exploration has been carried out by three working groups: - Group 1: Project research, competitive funding and laboratory financing, - Group 2: Attractiveness of jobs and scientific careers, - Group 3: Innovation and partnership research. On the basis of proposals made by these working groups, the Minister will propose to the Prime Minister the major axes that will structure this multi-year programming law. The schedule foresees a draft by the end of 2019, and adoption by the parliament in the course of 2020. The new law will come into force in early 2021, and will replace the current French National Research Strategy (SNR 2015-2020), enshrined in the 2013 law on higher education and research. http://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gou... |
| Germany | With the High-Tech Strategy 2025, mission orientation of national STI policy is becoming more prominent, involving a broad range of stakeholders, accompanied by a rising need in governance of STI policy and a more focused directionality in innovation funding. Strategic orientation has changed from a “key technology“ to a “grand challenges” and now to a ”mission-based“ approach. This is accompanied by a widening notion of innovation including social innovation, new business models, process innovation and participation of society. A main objective of the High Tech Strategy 2025 is to strengthen the technological basis in close connection with a skilled workforce in Germany. Recent decisions in this area concern the adoption of the Federal Government's artificial intelligence strategy, and education policy initiatives such as the "Digital Pact for Schools" or the new skilled labour force strategy. Related to this issue is also the updating of the Pact for Research and Innovation in 2019, and the decision for funding future “Universities of Excellence”, which was also taken in 2019. In addition, a need is seen in Germany to make STI policy more agile, risk taking and disruptive. With the creation of the new agency for disruptive innovations (SprinD) in 2018, this discussion has led to a completely new funding approach. More innovation oriented framework conditions is another focus of the discussion. Among other measures, an R&D tax scheme will be introduced in 2020. It will be designed so that it specifically targets SMEs and supports cooperation between businesses and public research institutions. The R&D tax scheme will complement, not replace, the project-oriented R&D support system already in place. The scheme will be a substantial contribution to achieving the national target of spending an annual 3.5% of GDP on R&D. |
| Greece | The General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT) is the central authority in Greece responsible for the design and management of RTDI policy. A central issue of debate over the last decade has been whether GSRT should belong to the Ministry of Development or to the Ministry of Education. In particular, in 1982 an independent Ministry for Research and Technology was established, which was subsequently downgraded in 1985 to a General Secretariat (GSRT), under the auspices of different configurations of the actual Ministry of Development up until 2009. Thereafter, GSRT was transferred to the Ministry of Education. After the general elections in July 2019, GSRT returned to the Ministry of Development and Investments according to Presidential Decree 81/2019. The main arguments are as follows: - First Option: GSRT-Ministry of Education. Universities are core elements of the RTDI system in Greece, since they conduct the most important part of R&D activities (as sector of performance). There is a need to link research to education and create a National Research and Education Area. In many European countries, the R&D portfolio belongs to the ministries of education. - Second Option: GSRT-Ministry of Development. RTDI is an important driver for growth. The main deficiencies of the Greek research and innovation system are the weak linkages between industry and academia, as well as the poor contribution of the private sector to R&D activities. There is an urgent need to reinforce oriented research in order to respond to the needs of the economy and society rather than support blue sky or curiosity driven research, where Greek universities and research centers perform relatively well, taking into account indicators such as publications, citations or participation to the European Framework Programmes. In either case, GSRT has built interlinks with the research communities in both Ministries, since: a) at the policy design level, GSRT formulates the R&D policy of the country through a bottom-up procedure that involves stakeholders of the quadruple-helix, including Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) b) at the policy implementation level, HEIs under the Minsitry of Education are included in the target beneficiaries of the calls announced by GSRT. |
| Hungary | The “Investment into the Future - National Research and Development and Innovation Strategy 2013-2020” (RDI strategy) was approved by the Hungarian Government in June 2013. Currently a new RDI strategy is being developed with the long-term aim to become a strong innovator country by 2030. The Ministry for Innovation and Technology (ITM) and the National Research, Development and Innovation Office (NKFIH) has launched a review of the National RDI Strategy, and in the beginning of 2019 launched a new consultation mechanism, the National Innovation Forum and at the end of 2019 NKFIH launched Territorial Innovation Platform (TIP) as an other new consultation mechanism. The European Innovation Scoreboard, compiled by the European Commission, shows that Hungary is not performing well. Hungary, like other Visegràd Group countries (including also Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia), is still regarded as one of the so-called "moderate innovators". Problems of the current research, development and innovation (RDI) system of Hungary include: - Lack of capabilities to generate the social and economic benefit that is essential to increase Hungary's competitiveness. - Under financing of the public research system and its institutional fragmentation into a number of universities, different research institutes belonging to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and sectoral institutions supervised by various ministries. Given these challenges, the transformation of the institutional and financing structure of the research institute network has become a government priority with a view to creating an RDI system that is competitive in both capacities and infrastructure at a European level. Along these lines, for the first time in Hungary’s history, the government established a separate Ministry for Innovation and Technology in 2018 to improve the performance of RDI ecosystem of Hungary to become a strong innovator by 2030. The fields that fall under the scope of competence of the Ministry are economy development, energy and climate policy, info-communications, transport and sustainability, vocational training, adult education and higher education. Due to the Government restructure in May 2018 the Ministry was established to take over the responsibility for the integrated management of domestic science policy. The creation of the Ministry can be seen as an indication of the Hungarian government’s commitment to RDI. The government’s aim is for Hungary to perform cutting-edge research, development and innovation at European level. To this end, the government’s target is to raise the amount of total R&D expenditures in Hungary to 1.8% of GDP by 2020. |
| Iceland | The Science and Technology Policy Council is responsible for setting public policy in matters of science and technology in Iceland. The role of the Science and Technology Policy Council is to support scientific research, science education and technological development in Iceland so as to strengthen the foundations of Icelandic culture and increase the competitiveness of the economy. The Science and Technology Policy Council operates pursuant to Act No 2/2003. The Council is chaired by the Prime Minister and its members include the Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs, the Minister of Education, Science and Culture, the Minister of Tourism, Industry and Innovation, as well as 16 representatives nominated by different ministries and higher education institutions and by the social partners. In addition, the chair may appoint up to four other ministers to the Council. The Council sets the official science and technology policy for a three-year period. The Council's deliberations in each of the two fields are prepared by its working committees, the Science Board and the Technology Board. The Science and Technology Policy Council is convened 2-3 times a year. The Council is currently working on a new Policy and Action Plan, the previous having run its course in 2019. Current debate focuses on revising and modernizing the founding legislation from 2003 and with it the structure of the Science and Technology Policy Council, to simplify the structure and clarify the role of individual actors in the system. There is an ongoing revision of the legislative framework for the Council, which includes revision of such structural issues and is due to be completed by the end of 2019. An innovation policy for Iceland until 2030, An innovative Iceland, was launched in late 2019 by the Minister of Tourism, Industry and Innovation. The policy will be followed up by actions for improvement and development of innovation support and ecosystem. |
| Ireland | A streamlined governance structure underpins the cross-departmental, whole-of-Government approach to how Ireland’s research strategy is developed and implemented. Innovation 2020 (I2020) is Ireland’s strategy for research and development, science and technology. Innovation 2020 outlines the Government’s approach to enhancing Ireland’s research, development and innovation base. It sets out a range of actions focused on increasing enterprise engagement in RDI, improving the quantity and quality of skilled workers, effective regulation of intellectual property, promoting collaboration with EU and international RDI activity and streamlining governance. Innovation 2020 is available at https://dbei.gov.ie/en/Publications/Inno.... Responsibility for oversight of Innovation 2020 rests with an Implementation Group, chaired by the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation (DBEI), which reports annually to the Government on progress under Innovation 2020. The Progress Reports, with updates on metrics and indicators, are available at https://dbei.gov.ie/en/Publications/Inno.... A Mid-term Review of Innovation 2020 was noted by Cabinet in June 2019 and is available at https://dbei.gov.ie/en/Publications/Mid-.... The Review acknowledges the changes in the policy environment and reaffirms the continued relevance of I2020 in ensuring the delivery of excellent research and driving innovation in Ireland. Future Jobs Ireland is our new whole-of-Government framework for the next phase of Ireland’s economic development. It outlines our longer-term ambitions for the future of the economy, under five key pillars. Future Jobs Ireland will build on progress made to date by focusing on securing the quantity and quality of skilled workers required in light of increased automation and digitalisation, improving the capacity of enterprise to absorb technology and exploit its advantages and opportunities; and encourage greater RDI activity to keep Irish enterprise at the frontier of innovation. Innovation 2020 will conclude at the end of 2020 and work has commenced on the development of its successor. |
| Israel | Apart from specific debates about ongoing activities, there is no public debate regarding how national STI policy is governed. |
| Italy | Italian STI policy governance cannot be set apart from what is discussed and negotiated in the European Union and at other international fora. For example, environmental issues, in terms of climate changes, biodiversity, and sustainable agriculture, are important points of discussion, as is sea pollution. Technological innovation, digitalisation and the Next Production Revolution (NPR or Industry 4.0) are also priority topics. The Ministry of Education, University and Research produced the National Research Plan (NRP) for the period 2014-2020 that elaborated 12 action areas and defined five thematic priorities, as follows: 1. Aerospace and Defense; 2. Health, nutrition, quality of life; 3. Intelligent and sustainable industry, energy and the environment 4. Tourism, cultural heritage and creativity industry; 5. Digital Agenda, Smart Communities, infrastructures and intelligent mobility systems. STI policy is co-discussed with other ministries, such as the Ministries of Health, of Environment, and of Economic Development, while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation coordinates international strategy. The Council of Ministries supervises activities at the EU and international levels. |
| Japan | To achieve sustainable development in Japan, which faces limited resources and a declining birthrate and aging population, horizontal and comprehensive STI cooperation among the public sector, private sector and other stakeholders is necessary. To date, Japan has formulated a strategy every year in line with the Fifth Science and Technology Basic Plan (FY 2016-2020) and has defined priorities for further promotion of the Basic Plan. In 2018, the government formulated an “Integrated innovation strategy” with the aim of establishing the “Most Innovation-friendly Country in the world” by integrating the measures of the Cabinet Office and each Ministry. In 2019, the government revised the “Integrated Innovation Strategy 2019” based on the remarkable progress and changes in science, technology and innovation (STI) both at home and abroad. This policy is an important measure in that the government aims to promote innovation policies, from basic research to social implementation, across ministries and agencies. As a “control tower” of these cross-ministerial policies, the Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (CSTI), established within the Cabinet Office, is composed of experts from academia and industry and chaired by the Prime Minister. CSTI is responsible for planning, guiding, and coordinating comprehensive science and technology policies in Japan. Furthermore, based on the integrated innovation strategy, the government established the “Integrated Innovation Strategy Promotion Council” in 2018. This Council was composed of the CSTI and the “control towers” of other fields (e.g. information and communications, intellectual property, health and medical care, space, and ocean), in order to further strengthen cross-sectoral coordination across multiple policy areas closely related to innovation. |
| Kazakhstan | Science, technology and innovation (STI) policy is regulated by the main laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan in this field: (i) the law "On Science"; and, (ii) the Law "On the commercialization of the results of scientific and technical activities. The Entrepreneurial Code provides additional legislative framing. An essential priority for the Kazakh government is to increase its R&D expenditures and stimulate business investment to R&D through different mechanisms. According to a recently approved State Programme for Education and Science Development 2020-2025, the Government aims to raise Gross Expenditures in R&D (GERD) to 1% of GDP by 2025. The main goal is to develop effective mechanisms to involve business, industry and private sector in the STI field through joint investments and the joint creation of new products. The government also aims to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of science, by synchronizing it with the business innovation. The main ongoing issues around the governance of STI policy in Kazakhstan are: - increasing the level of funding for STI activities; - increasing staff employed in R&D in HEIs and PRIs; - improving research infrastructure and digitalization of STI processes; - developing effective operation of competitive research funding systems; - assessing the impact of public research on innovation; - fostering university-industry collaboration; - enhancing international co-operation in STI; and - increasing the number of publications in peer-reviewed journals. The State Programme for Education and Science Development 2020-2025 includes most of these activities and targets to achieve them by 2025. For example, in 2018 there were 17 454 researchers in Kazakhstan. By the end of 2025, the Government aims to increase their number to 18 400. Another target example is to increase the number of publications in peer-reviewed journals by 88% and the number of patents by 22% by 2025. The State Programme also aims to improve research infrastructure and digitalise STI processes, enhance international co-operation in STI. The governance of STI is coordinated between the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES), the Ministry of Digital Development, Innovations and Aerospace Industry (MDDIAI) and other public authorities within the Higher Scientific and Technical Commission. However, this coordination needs more accurate differentiation of responsibilities for each public body. MoES is responsible for science and commercialisation whereas, since 2019, the MDDIAI is accountable for innovations. |
| Korea | Among the main policy debates are the following: - To achieve disruptive innovations in response to the imminent Fourth Industrial Revolution, possible approaches to ensuring effective public-private R&D partnership are being discussed and explored. - For the development and acquisition of critical materials and equipment technologies to be used by industries, the need for a new promotion and coordination scheme is emerging. - The improvement of the national R&D evaluation system now requires the reinforcement of qualitative evaluation and a reduced evaluation burden. |
| Latvia | Institutional Consolidation of the Latvian Science Policy Implementation System In response to the Horizon 2020 Policy Support Facility experts’ recommendations for Latvia, developed as part of the 2018 report “The Latvian Research Funding System”, the Ministry of Education and Science (MoES) has begun to implement major reforms of the Latvian science policy implementation system. This involves consolidating its smaller administrative institutions and agencies (i.e. the Latvian Council of Science, Study and Science administration and State Education and Development Agency). This process will create a one-stop agency responsible for all science policy implementation through a pro-active management approach and greater flexibility in programme design (including greater in-house analytical capacity). The conceptual report, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers on October 14th, 2019 Order Nr. 495 (protocol. Nr. 46 29. §), presents a detailed action plan for implementation in 2020. The consolidation process will result in a newly formed strong, unified institution for the implementation of science policy – the Latvian Council of Science, which will officially begin its work on July 1st 2020. Further development of our Smart Specialization Strategy (RIS3) Latvia’s first detailed RIS3 monitoring results show a clear need for a more detailed approach towards R&I funding instruments in the next planning period. The government would like to move from a broader approach where programmes and activities are implemented in RIS3 areas towards an ecosystem approach, focusing on a more detailed and diverse policy mix tailored towards the specific needs in each of the five RIS3 specialisation areas. R&I funding instruments will be created focusing on specific sub-areas within the broad RIS3 areas. Quality in research-based higher education – Improving higher education institution governance and strengthening research based higher education The cornerstones of this reform are: a more effective institutional governance structure, diversification of funding and development of human capital. The reform is proposed to address the weaknesses and deficiencies of the higher educational system, such as low international competitiveness, lack of clear development strategies, study program fragmentation and separation of research and academic activities, as pointed out by local stakeholders and international experts. The objectives of the reform are to: - Increase autonomy for internal structural entities and strengthen the principle of external accountability of the institution by ensuring a broad representation of internal and especially external interested parties on the Governing Board - Define the principles for involving external stakeholders in strategic development decisions - Open the positions of rectors and vice-rectors for external activities, incl. international competition - Establish clearer requirements and more transparent procedures for selecting and approving candidates for all administrative posts - Establish HEI’s development strategies as an integral part of improvements in institutional operation - Improve university-internal governance mechanisms by reviewing the division of responsibilities, and by strengthening the role of the Governing Board, consisting predominantly of external stakeholders, in decision-making - Develop mechanisms for consolidating higher education and research resources. |
| Lithuania | In 2018 Lithuania adopted an Innovation Reform that will significantly change the country’s innovation ecosystem. The basis for the reform is the Law on Technologies and Innovation, together with amendments to the Law on Higher Education and Research, that establish the structure of the technology and innovation system and the institutions making and implementing the technology and innovation policy. There are three key elements of the reform: (i) to revise interactions in the Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) ecosystem; (ii) to revise innovation support schemes; and, (iii) to attract talents and R&D oriented foreign direct investment. In this context, Lithuania took key decisions to promote the growth of an efficient innovation ecosystem. This ecosystem is directly dependent on robust and clear inter-institution coordination, along with clearly defined responsibilities of policy makers. These responsibilities were defined in the special Law on Technologies and Innovation: (a) the Ministry of Economy and Innovation is responsible for the technology and innovation policy; and, (b) the Ministry of Education and Science and Sports is in charge of research policy and the preparation of highly skilled professionals. The goal of the innovation reform is to boost productivity growth and increase the country’s competitiveness. The focus is to maintain the momentum and reduce the productivity gap in the medium term. Our knowledge-based sectors such as biotechnology industries, laser manufacturing, machinery, electronics, mechatronics and information technology are expanding. Lithuania is making efforts to expand high-technology sectors with strong R&D and innovation potential, such as life science industry, information technology (pertaining to both manufacturing and services) and engineering industries. In science and innovation diplomacy, the following goals have been set: (i) positioning Lithuania as a reliable and attractive region for innovation; (ii) promoting active participating in international STI programmes of Lithuanian actors; (iii) seeking internationally competitive results in the field of STI; (iv) attracting foreign investment in R&D; and, (v) encouraging Lithuanian entities to join global chains of higher added value. |
| Luxembourg | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: The past debates on the various vertical and horizontal co-ordination mechanisms – particularly those related setting national priorities and inter-ministerial co-ordination – have largely been settled. The existing national priorities are mostly accepted and only require further adaptation. Informal communication channels between ministries are considered sufficient. One outstanding issue is whether the informal co-ordination of the actors performing public research (organised through a gathering – known as the "3LIU" – of the three public research institutes plus the University of Luxembourg) should be institutionalised, and what roles the ministries and funding agencies might play in such co-ordination. Another outstanding issue is whether Luxembourg needs a formal strategy for public research, or even a broader national innovation strategy. |
| Malta | Malta is currently developing its new R&I Strategy and Smart Specialisation Strategy for post-2020. This process involves an extensive review of ongoing measures through both the recently established Monitoring system as well as a bottom up consultative process with all stakeholders. As part of this process, a Peer Review of the National R&I System was concluded in June 2019. The Peer Review provided valuable insights on how to improve the governance of STI Policy in Malta at both the political and the technical level. Work is currently ongoing on analysing these recommendations and identifying the most appropriate way forward for their recommendations. |
| Mexico | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: Mexican science, technology and innovation (STI) policy intends to make investment in the development of STI a pillar of the country’s sustainable economic development. Hence, the most important issue is to increase national investments in STI. Another major goal is to strengthen the links between higher education institutions (HEIs) and research centres, and the public, social and private sectors. Special attention is also being paid to science communication, by establishing an open-science programme to make science and scientific information accessible to every citizen. |
| Morocco | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: The main issues of debate on the governance of national science, technology and innovation (STI) policy are as follows: 1) Research funding, particularly through public-private partnerships: public resources are limited, and the national gross domestic expenditure on research and development (GERD) remains relatively low (around 0.73% of gross domestic product [GDP]) compared to countries with similar incomes. This does not allow the national research and innovation system to achieve the expected outcomes. 2) The socio-economic impact of scientific research: while large public budgets are spent on research and development (R&D), its outputs and impacts on innovation and technological development in Morocco are limited, even though R&D is a real lever for the country’s socio-economic development in other areas. 3) Evaluation of scientific research and evolution/trends of STI indicators: the institutional evaluation of research and innovation activities is not sufficiently anchored in Morocco. Researchers can advance in their careers without displaying a prominent scientific and/or technological production that would justify it. The absence of an STI observatory (or similar unit) provides information on the evolution of STI indicators, and Morocco’s position in this regard at the regional and international levels leads to recurring questions about producing and updating these indicators. |
| Netherlands | Current policy debates address a number of questions, among which are the following: 1. What relation is there between specific and generic innovation policies? The Netherlands puts huge emphasis on generic R&D support policies through tax deductions, which are easy to implement. However, more specific policies involve supporting specific themes (like energy transition), technologies (like photonics), or sectors (like life sciences). This creates the need for a governance and selection process, which also involves proper arrangements for monitoring and evaluation. 2. Public-private cooperation in designing and implementing STI policies. The Netherlands traditionally co-designs STI policies with public and private partners, E e.g. public support promoting SMEs adoption of new technologies is delegated to the ”top sector” private bodies of companies. Likewise, selecting grants for public-private collaboration (mainly targeting companies and applied research institutes and universities) is delegated to these bodies. Now that public support is shifting towards research and innovation (R&I) missions targeting societal challenges (health, agri-food, security, energy transition), new arrangements may be needed for public-private cooperation. 3. Geopolitical considerations means the Netherlands must choose between 'safe and open' and 'insecure and more protected' technologies. While this is easy to administer for a number of goods (including dual use goods), this might be more difficult when it comes to technologies where the Netherlands would like to cooperate and make use of the knowledge other parties have. Given technology has increasingly geopolitical aspects, there is an urge for clear policies. How to deal with the need to stay at the forefront in promising technologies as AI? And how should cooperation with other countries look like? For example, the government recently published its ‘China Strategy’ that explains how the Netherlands looks at cooperation with China. This strategy aims at a balance between looking at technologies and cooperation in an open way and allowing cooperation, while also safeguarding national interests. The Strategy does not explain, however, what cooperation between universities should look like, for instance. There should be a balance between open cooperation and preventing leaking knowledge. 4. A related question is how to continue the transition towards open science, in the Netherlands and internationally (e.g. in Horizon Europe and in bilateral partnerships), by engaging ever more researchers, businesses, publishers, data platforms and other actors, while taking into account competitiveness, security and other considerations. 5. How to move from triple helix to quadruple helix models of innovation, which involves engaging a variety of societal stakeholders throughout the entire science and innovation process and in the governance structure of STI policy? 6. A question that is more relevant for science policy and technology policy than for innovation policy is how to secure sufficient opportunities for bottom-up, curiosity driven research? As societal challenges become a more prominent perspective for innovation policy and, to some extent, science policy, affecting the strategies of individual universities and research organisations, what are the consequences for bottom-up, curiosity driven research? 7. Specifically in science policy, a question is how the assessment of researchers could be widened and more flexible (looking at education, societal impact, contribution to research infrastructures, open science, etc., instead of the narrow focus on publications, grants, etc.)? One of the challenges is for the Netherlands to contribute to international developments in this respect, also to prevent other countries continuing to assess (Dutch) researchers based on publications and grants only. |
| New Zealand | The rights and role of M?ori in the governance of the science, technology and innovation system is a subject of ongoing policy debate. The New Zealand Government has obligations to M?ori under the Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840 by both British settlers and M?ori chiefs. Interactions between M?ori and the Crown are guided today by Treaty principles, which include the principle that M?ori and the Crown should work in partnership, the principle that M?ori knowledge, interests, and values should be protected, and the principle of active participation of M?ori, including throughout Government and policy. However, the extent of these obligations and how they should manifest in today’s science, technology and innovation system remains unclear, including how to approach research which M?ori have a unique interest in, and how to integrate M?ori knowledge systems and values throughout the STI system. Current issues include research data management of M?ori data, including M?ori genomics data, which to M?ori is considered a taonga, or treasure. This data must be stored in New Zealand, if M?ori are to retain governance and ownership over it, however this creates tension with the increasing globalisation of the science system, and technological trends which include the use of offshore data storage centres. Similarly, M?tauranga M?ori, distinctive M?ori knowledge which has developed in M?ori communities for over 600 years, struggles to be recognised as complementary to western science systems, and there are ongoing debates around how this unique knowledge can be best promoted and reflected within New Zealand’s STI system, in a way that will encourage M?ori engagement and governance with the science system. |
| Norway | The government’s first long-term plan for research and higher education 2015–2024 was presented in 2014. The plan is revised every four years to accommodate changes in the political and societal landscape, and the first revision was made in 2018. The revised long-term plan still has a ten-year perspective (2019–2028), with a specification of goals and priority areas for the upcoming four-year period. The plan is one of the main tools for co-ordinating the government's research policy. The first long-term plan received some criticism for only having concrete funding targets in areas funded by the Ministry of Education and Research (infrastructure, PhD and postdoc. positions and European co-operation). For the upcoming period there are plans for escalation of efforts in the areas of technology and business R&D and innovation that also affects the budget lines of other ministries. The government is currently conducting a comprehensive review of the agency structure and operations supporting business R&D and innovation, and considering, for example, the division of labour between different organisations and programmes, including the principal agencies Research Council of Norway and Innovation Norway. The government has appointed a commission to review and propose changes to the regulations covering higher education, and has also announced that it will deliver a white paper (report to the Storting) on the steering of the public higher education institutions in connection with new legislation for higher education. Following a change in the campus structure of one of the institutions that was merged in the higher education structure reform in 2016, there has been public debate around the university's autonomy in decisions regarding the geographical distribution of higher education. Some have called for the Minister of Higher Education and Research to intervene and overturn the decisions of the university, while others, including the rectors of the main higher education institutions, have voiced the need for the institutions themselves to make such decisions in accordance with their responsibility for the education provided. |
| Peru | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: The different sectors of the Peruvian Government are focusing their efforts on orienting the country’s research centres to respond to business-sector demand and improve their products to provide greater value added. The National Council for Science, Technology and Technological Innovation (CONCYTEC) and the Ministry of Production are currently working together to build an innovation agenda. The Ministry of Production is leading the National Plan for Production Diversification; one of its main goals is to implement a policy to foster business innovation. CONCYTEC leads the Create to Grow Strategy. Moreover, the government is seeking to valuate Perus rich biodiversity; the agrarian sector is intent on integrating the use of precision agriculture; and the fishing sector received a boost through the creation of the National Programme for Innovation in Fisheries and Aquaculture (PNIPA) in 2017. Under the Law of Canon or Royalties No. 27506, the regional governments will allocate 20% of the total distribution by canon to the public universities located in their circumscription, to be exclusively dedicated to investment in scientific and technological research promoting regional development. The important accumulation of royalty funds accumulated over previous years has driven several regional public universities. Public Sector Budget Law No. 30372 for 2016 (34th Final Complementary Provision) allows national government, regional government and local government entities to transfer resources to CONCYTEC. Based on Law No. 30372, CONCYTEC signed agreements with the National University of San Agustín de Arequipa (2016) and the National University San Antonio Abad of Cusco (2017) to develop science, technology and innovation (STI) in each university through funding and scholarship competitions. The Congress of the Republic presented a bill to modify Framework Law No. 28303 on Science, Technology and Technological Innovation (STI) and Law No. 28613 on CONCYTEC, granting CONCYTEC a sanctioning role when ethics rules – e.g. on investigations, surrender of subsidies and plagiarism – are violated. This bill has received a technical opinion from CONCYTEC and is still under discussion. |
| Poland | Innovation policy in Poland in recent years has been undergoing many changes. Insufficient progress has been observed in the performance of the innovation system and on the economy as a whole. Thus, Poland is shifting its innovation policy to avoid falling into the “middle-income country trap” and become competitive in high-value added markets. The challenge is to increase the share of the high-technology sector in the economy. In particular, the adaptation of innovative solutions to the country’s exported products and services that are sought in world markets. Polish innovation is currently characterised by (i) innovation by creative imitation; and, (ii) poor cooperation between actors and innovators. The challenge of changing the model of innovation beyond creative imitation is a main point of debate. The most important barriers to the development of innovation of Polish companies are risk-aversion and a low motivation to invest in innovation and training. In addition, the innovation support system has two main weaknesses: (i) the mismatch between available instruments and target groups’ needs; and, (ii) an excessive share of non-refundable assistance. In terms of funding, the existing Polish innovation system is largely based on European Union allocations. This has resulted in a reliance on the priorities set by the European Commission, while also transferring regulations and management methods for the funds acquired. Discussions on the causes of Poland’s persisting lag and the effectiveness of the EC’s approach to promoting innovation are ongoing. A comprehensive legislative reform programme has already been undertaken to improve this situation. The innovation support system in the new financial perspectives of the European Union (Horizon Europe) is also being modified. |
| Portugal | The governance of science, technology and innovation (STI) policy is one of the main challenges and opportunities for policy making to: (i) better integrate education, research and innovation activities of higher education institutions (HEIs) and research institutions (RIs); (ii) foster greater synergies and impacts from investments in education and research at local and global levels; and, (iii) strengthen institutional and international relational frameworks. The 2019 OECD review of the Portuguese Research Innovation and Higher Education System has promoted national debates on the interaction of different actors and the educational, social, scientific and their economic impact. These debates have also been followed by policy developments and new legislation, under a consolidation path. Recent policy initiatives and legislation can be identified, namely the so called “Law of Science”, which can be framed in five fundamental pillars: (i) The institutional context of the scientific and technological system, as regards scope, organisation, diversification and linkage to the territory, emphasizing the distinctive role of State Laboratories, Associate Laboratories, Collaborative Laboratories and R&D units, including public and private research organisations; (ii) The human capital, concerning the training of advanced human resources and the promotion of researchers careers and working conditions; (iii) The social, cultural, institutional and scientific responsibility of R&D activities and promotion of scientific and technological culture; (iv) The internationalization of the national research system, and the compelling need to broaden international scientific and technological cooperation, the participation in international organizations, and the advanced training of Portuguese speaking scientists; and (v) The assessment, funding and monitoring the national scientific and technological system. This recent revision of the legal framework for the coordination of the National Research and Innovation System entities stems from an open public debate and stands out as rather significant contribution to the improvement of the governance process. In institutional terms, this clarification adds to substantiate the creation of consortia as a principle, calling for more private funding translating into new forms of risk-sharing partnerships among government, industry and academia, skilled employment and wealth creation oriented. This approach is leading to stronger optimization of resources and impacts, inspiring the surge of relevant CoLabs, and giving rise to new initiatives in critical and emerging areas, such as (i) the Atlantic International Research (AIR) Centre, in the form of an intergovernmental organization through a public-private partnership with a flexible international governance model, together with a Space R&I Agenda (i.e. “Portugal Space 2030”) including new technology business for “New Space”; (ii) the “Portuguese Space Agency”, with a flexible public-private partnership and governance model, and (iii) the “Clinical Research and Biomedical Innovation Agency” involving a flexible public-private partnership and governance model, providing financial contributions to the promotion of clinical research and new technology business. |
| Romania | Current debates focus on: (i) R&D intensity (GERD is currently accounting for 0.51 % GDP); and, (ii) shifting decision-making from the national to regional level (NUTS2). Each region has a Regional Development Agency (RDA) that elaborates a Regional Development Plan ensuring the technical management of funding. A proper regionalization process, however, remains uncertain in Romania. The topic has been intermittently on the top of the public policy agenda, but controversies regarding the appropriate depth and breadth of regionalization have determined the delay of any firm decision. To date, neither of the two types of regions (NUTS1 and NUTS2) have a legal status, and both exist primarily for the purpose of coordinating development projects. Besides the region of Bucharest-Ilfov, the other seven completed in 2017 the design of Smart Specialization Strategies, responding to the European Commission’s requirement for regions within European Union Member States to receive funding from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Romania’s regional strategies constitute inputs to the ongoing process of developing a national R&D and innovation strategy. To coordinate the regional and the national policies, in August 2019 a National Committee for Coordination of the Smart Specialisation Strategies was established. It includes members from various ministries such as the Ministry of Research and Innovation, the Ministry of Economy, the Ministry of National Education, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Communications and the Information Society. At the end of 2019, the Ministry of Research and Innovation was merged with the Ministry of National Education to form the Ministry of Education and Research (MER). A share of around 90% of the total R&D budget is coordinated by MER. The remaining part is coordinated by the Romanian Academy while less than 1% is the responsibility of sectoral ministries. MER collaborates with two advisory bodies on RD&I: i/ the Advisory Board for RD&I, composed of scientific and business community representatives and supporting the promotion of applied research and innovation, and ii/ the National Council for Scientific Research composed of scientific community representatives and supporting the promotion of fundamental research and the development of human resources for research. Both RD&I advisory bodies have important responsibilities in assisting the MER to shape its policy and to design and evaluate the implementing instruments. |
| Russian Federation | Current debates in STI policy are focused around national development goals stated in the Russian President's Decree No. 204 dated May 7, 2018 "On the National Development Goals and Strategic Objectives of the Russian Federation in the Period until 2024". Two national goals out of nine to be achieved by 2024 refer to "acceleration of the technological development of the Russian Federation, an increase in the number of organizations implementing technological innovations, up to 50 percent of their total number" and "ensuring accelerated implementation of digital technologies in the economy and social sphere". To achieve these national goals in STI and digitalization, the national project "Science" and the national programme "Digital Economy" have been adopted by the President's Council on Strategic Development and National Projects in 2018. The activities within these two programmes will be one of the major focuses in STI policy in the coming years. |
| Slovak Republic | The Slovak Republic is a small and very open economy, whose size is comparable to the size of regions in large EU countries. Slovakia continues to lag behind in the intensity of its business innovation activities. It also lags on expenditures for research, development and innovation (RDI) projects that affect practice, in technology transfer, in the use of cooperation potential, patent activities, in cooperation of research institutions with industry, in the use of venture capital and in a number of aspects conditioning the effective use of human resources. There is still a low level of cooperation between the institutions of science and research, education and economy in the development and growth of the competitiveness of Slovakia’s industrial basis, in connection with creating competitive innovative products, technologies and services. Research and innovation are a weak link in the Slovak economy, as signaled by the following long-term trends (1989-2011): - A decrease in total expenditure on R&D and in the number of research personnel, especially in enterprises. Research personnel fell from 60,548 to 28,596 in the 1989-2011 period, which was accompanied by a decline in R&D expenditures as a percentage of GDP from 3.88% to 0.68%; - Increasing share of public funding of research and innovation. The share of enterprises in total R&D expenditures fell from 69% to 34% in the 1993-2011 period; - Loss of target-orientation and the growth of “untargeted” general research without clear thematic priorities. The share of untargeted and general research increased from 38% to 58% in the 1993-2011 period; - Increasing share of basic research at the expense of applied research. The share of basic research in the total funding of research and development grew from 22.6 % to 48.9 %, while the share of applied research decreased from 49.4 % to 24.6 % in the 1994-2011 period. Reversing these trends requires concrete, clearly formulated and quantifiable policy measures for the 2014-2020 period. New strategies and changes in state economic policies are necessary, especially in relation to the funding and management of education, research, innovation and the support to business. Due to limited resources and capacities, the government’s strategy concentrates on a limited number of priorities, which are defined based on the strengths and international specialisation of Slovakia. This fact has been reflected in the orientation of particular investment measures, so as to avoid fragmentation and to concentrate structural funds, public budgets and private resources on priorities with competitive advantage and with the highest development potential. |
| Slovenia | The main objective of the Research and Innovation Strategy of Slovenia (RISS) is to establish a modern research and innovation system that will allow for a higher quality of life for all, critical reflection in society, efficiency in addressing social challenges, increased value added per employee, and assurance of more and higher-quality workplaces. In the last two years, the governance of STI policy was debated mostly within the framework of the preparation of the new law for science and innovation and through the support of an H2020 Policy Support Facility (PSF) exercise. The internationalisation of the science base and science-business cooperation have been two key issues of discussion. Regarding the latter, the main challenge is the mismatch between the activities of the academic sector and the business sector. The core question was how to align and improve governance and policy implementation for a more effective and sustainable research and innovation ecosystem, based on a strong autonomy of Public Research Organisations (PROs) and their social responsibility. Debates leading to the preparation of the new law included relevant stakeholders including universities, research institutes, trade unions, research agencies, ministries responsible for science and economy, chambers of commerce and young researchers. It also gathered feedback from the broader civil society. The debate was also opened as part of the adoption process of the RISS report, with the participation of the Science and Technology Council, the government and the National Assembly, where a broad group of policy makers participated. The results of the PSF exercise were presented and debated in the National Assembly, Parliamentary committee for education, science, sports and youth. |
| South Africa | There was a reconfiguration of South Africa’s Administration following the May 2019 national elections. This has resulted in the merger of the Departments of Science and Technology and Higher Education and Training, an important step towards enhancing the coordination of the National System of Innovation (NSI). As governance framework, the promotion of a coherent and inclusive NSI is a strategic focus area of South Africa’s White Paper on Science, Technology and Innovation. The South African Cabinet approved the White Paper as government policy in March 2019. The White Paper acknowledges that improved national STI policy governance is essential to enable the NSI to achieve its potential to improve the quality of life across all South Africans. Improving inclusiveness and building more linkages across the NSI is a pervasive theme in national STI policy discussions. Equally important is the enhancement of policy coherence and programme coordination in the NSI, including the appropriate ministerial governance. Interventions to strengthen the governance of pubic NSI institutions as well as the appropriate expansion of the NSI also feature prominently in the debate. The White Paper also highlights the role of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) systems for effective agenda-setting in the NSI. Hence, how best to institutionalize M&E is an important focus of the national debate. This interrogation pertains to both the M&E skills required as well as the linkages between M&E of the NSI and broader international and government M&E frameworks (e.g. the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals). The institutionalization of a framework guiding public STI investment is also an important topic. The White Paper also proposes establishing a Presidential biennial multi-stakeholder summit (to deal with macro coordination and planning concerns of the STI system) and an Inter-Ministerial STI Structure, under the guidance of the Minister of Higher Education, Science and Technology to facilitate and enhance policy coherence, prioritisation and alignment of STI policy with other government policies. A Presidential Commission on the Fourth Industrial Revolution has been established to determine the state of readiness and to advise on actions to be pursued by the country in dealing with its consequences. South Africa is also developing a reimagined industrial strategy as part of its efforts to boost the economic recovery and industrialisation efforts. Here, innovation and technology are also seen as critical. There are a number of organisations undertaking policy-relevant research and analysis of the NSI. A first group spans in-house capabilities of the main policy-making bodies (including Departments of Science and innovation, Higher Education and Training, Minerals and Energy, and others that influence innovative activity across the economy and society). A second in-house group of bodies consists of larger STI organisations such as the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and advisory bodies such as the National Advisory Council on Innovation (NACI) and the Council of Higher Education. The 2019 White Paper on STI has expanded the role and functions of the NACI to include M&E of the system, planning and agenda-setting and the institutionalisation of foresight exercises. Thirdly, there are important capabilities outside such bodies, mainly in academic organisations. This has three main components. The largest is located in the Human Sciences Research Council and has several segments, with the Centre for Science and Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII) at the core having the responsibility for the national RDI surveys. There are also small research groups in at least the following universities: the University of Stellenbosch (Centre for Research on Science and Technology), the University of Pretoria (Institute for Technological Innovation), the University of Cape Town (Programme for Science Studies in the South) and the University of Limpopo (Social Innovation Centre). |
| Spain | The central themes that have dominated the general debate on STI policy in the last two years in Spain include: a) The process of preparation of the new Spanish Strategy of Science, Technology and Innovation 2021-2027, which is the overarching policy framework that guides and sets the priorities for central and regional government STI plans. Besides central and regional governments, different stakeholders (including universities, RDI organisations, technological centres, funding organisations, SMEs and industries, associations, foundations, etc.) are contributing to the agenda-setting and policy formulation of the Strategy. In particular, the Strategy’s design should guarantee external coherence with Horizon Europe and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Strategy plays the role of the national smart specialisation strategy for Spain and maintains internal coherence with the regional smart specialisation strategies. b) The Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (MCIU), in line with the 2018 Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council and the Economic and Social Committee on Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Europe, and the subsequent Coordinated Plan on AI, has worked on a Spanish Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) AI Strategy, which was presented in March 2019. http://www.ciencia.gob.es/stfls/MICINN/C... The RDI Strategy on AI informs the orientation of the future Spanish Strategy on RDI 2021-2027. Furthermore, the Government Delegate Commission for Scientific, Technological and Innovation Policy initiated in 2019 a process to elaborate the Spanish National AI Strategy (ENIA) in a co-creation strategy with 15 ministries of the Spanish government leaded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation. The ENIA aims at a common vision for national public policies by aligning the current sectoral and transversal state and regional plans with clear objectives and axes of action. The publication of ENIA is envisaged for the end of 2019. It will be accompanied by the launch of the Spanish Artificial Intelligence Capabilities Map https://mapa.estrategiaia.es/mapa. c) The Council of Ministers approved in June 2018 the "Action Plan for the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda: Towards a Spanish Strategy for Sustainable Development". All Ministerial Departments, as well as the Autonomous Communities, Local Entities and representative organisations of civil society have participated in preparing the Plan, which includes priority areas of action, or “leverage policies”, i.e. a set of existing public policies and instruments that are relevant to SDGs. These include policies for scientific and technical research. d) The Government Delegate Commission for Scientific, Technological and Innovation Policy proposed in December 2018 the preparation of the Spanish Innovation Strategy for the Blue Economy and the creation of an inter-ministerial working group for its development. e) The need for a broad Parliament consensus on science and technology has concentrated a significant part of the general debates on STI policy. This consensus involves a stable investment in R&D, including a medium term budget framework for the public and private sectors to reach the 2% goal for GERD/GDP. f) The government also took further steps to develop an evaluation culture for public research and innovation policy. Measures included the inclusion of STI programmes in the Spending Review of the Independent Authority for Fiscal Responsibility (AIReF) (Program for the Promotion of Talent and its employability and tax incentives for RDI); and the impact evaluation commissioned by the Spanish Innovation Agency (CDTI). g) A central aspect of Spain’s R&D policy has been to ensure equality between men and women. The Spanish government is working to close the gender gap in the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). The “Women Science and Innovation Observatory” was created to guarantee equal opportunities and to increase the presence of women in scientific and university fields. |
| Sweden | System innovation for the SDGs, sustainable development, and competitiveness all raise the question of how to mobilise system transformation through mission-oriented research and innovation policies. Mission processes face several governance issues, including how to generate cross-ministerial, cross-agency and national-regional co-ordination? And how to mobilize for missions in the EU Framework programme, towards Horizon Europe? Mobilising public administration for the digital transformation is under discussion. Emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, that will fuel the next production revolution will contribute to a societal transformation. How will public administration keep pace with these rapid and complex developments, and adjust to this transformation? Research funding is governed by research bills to parliament every fourth year outlining the overall structure of new funds or reassigning earlier funds. Innovation policies based on research is governed in the same bills. In addition to this, in 2014 an innovation council under chairmanship of the Prime Minister was established by the government. The mission for this council is to articulate the government’s plans and to counsel the government on strategic challenges to promote innovation. Governance in the university sector is under ongoing discussion. Universities have a large degree of autonomy, but the discussion is focused on whether full separation from the public sector should follow. The Dutch system of "Development contracts between the Government and the University institutions" has been discussed as one way forward. Currently, the government is working on developing an indicator-based allocation of institutional funds. |
| Switzerland | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: In Switzerland, research and innovation are considered key for common welfare, sustainable development, internal cohesion and cultural diversity. Research is the source of new knowledge, and innovation is the basis of market success. Research and innovation are therefore priority policy areas for the Swiss Federal Council. The Swiss education, research and innovation (ERI) system is considered efficient, coherent, internationally compatible and future-oriented. The Swiss Federal Council believes there are two primary reasons for this. First, the leading public and private sector actors pursue a partnership approach based on a common understanding that the ERI system should be developed cautiously. Second, both the Swiss Confederation and the cantons view the promotion of ERI as a high priority. Indeed, public spending on ERI has seen significant growth since the mid-1990s. A strong political consensus exists in Switzerland that science, technology and innovation (STI) policy is governed successfully, and that its governance should continue along the same set of principles. Two recent major policy debates concerning STI bear mentioning. First, the Swiss Parliament adopted the four-year education and STI federal budget (ERI Dispatch 2017-20) after a prolonged debate about the respective priorities of strict budgetary discipline, and the need to strengthen the international competitiveness of STI and education. Second, the importance of full Swiss association to Horizon 2020 was a substantial argument in the policy debate about the free movement of workers between Switzerland and the European Union. In December 2016, the Parliament confirmed its support for the free movement of workers, enabling Switzerland to retrieve its full association to Horizon 2020 from 1 January 2017 onwards. |
| Thailand | Significant change in Thailand’s governance comes through the establishment of a new ministry, essentially merging science and technology with higher education. The Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation (MHESI) was established on 1 May 2019, bringing in four government entities under one roof, i.e. the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC), the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) and the Thailand Research Fund (TRF). The new ministry is now responsible for two important missions: the creation of human resources and the application of knowledge and innovation for the national development. It will enable a unified and flexible government agency to facilitate linkages between higher education institutes, research agencies and private companies through mechanisms such as talent mobility, technology transfer and education management. In line with the new ministry, a new policy council named the National Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation Policy Council was established in May 2019 to replace the previous the National Research and Innovation Policy Council. Similar to the previous council, this new council is chaired by the Prime Minister, with a designated Deputy Prime Minister and the MHESI Minister serving as vice chairs. The council comprises ministers of nine relevant ministries, leaderships of relevant organizations and no more than 10 experts appointed by the cabinet. The council has the following key roles: (i) setting a unified and systematic policy and strategy for higher education, science, research and innovation; (ii) approving the allocation of the national science, research and innovation budget to relevant organizations according to national strategies; and, (iii) monitoring the implementation of policy and strategy. Another important development in recent years is the official launch of the 20-Year National Strategy (2018-2037) on 8 October 2018, setting the vision for Thailand to have stability, prosperity and sustainability and become a developed nation as guided by the sufficiency economy philosophy. In line with this long-term strategy, MHESI introduced a BCG economic model (an integration of bioeconomy, circular economy and green economy) aiming to transform the nation to an innovation-driven economy by enhancing the competitiveness of both grassroots and technology enterprises and by attaining Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This economic concept will enable SDGs through the promotion of sustainable agriculture; clean energy and responsible consumption and production; ensuring the conservation and sustainable utilization of biodiversity; and protecting the environment and ecosystems. In 2017, Thailand’s gross expenditures on R&D (GERD) reached 1% of GDP for the first time, moving closer to the government’s goal of 1.5% of GDP by the end of 2022. In 2017 GERD totalled 155.14 billion THB (4.59 billion EUR), a 36% increase from the previous year. Private sector contributed an astounding amount of R&D expenditure at 123.94 billion THB (3.67 billion EUR), accounting for 80% of GERD; whereas the public sector (government, academic, non-profit organizations and state enterprises) spent about 31.20 billion THB (924.25 million EUR). |
| Turkey | Following the results from the 16 April 2017 referendum, Turkey has adopted a “Presidential Government System”, a governance structure unique to Turkey. The new Turkish public administration system has a strong vision for (i) the empowerment of inter-sectoral coordination and cooperation; (ii) the diversification of consultation and negotiation processes to ensure coordination within the executive branch; and, (iii) to ensure stability and productivity in governmental processes. This vision will allow the executive the agility and effectiveness to achieve Turkey’s 2023 targets, i.e. 1.08 Trillion USD for GDP (gross domestic product), 12 484 USD for per capita income, 500 Billion USD for exports and reducing the unemployment rate to 5%. The number of ministries has been reduced to 16 (comparable to international standards). Some ministries have been merged to better leverage the new presidential system of government. In this regard, the former Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology has become the Ministry of Industry and Technology according to Decree No. 703 dated 9 July 2018. There are 8 directorates, 4 offices and 9 councils affiliated directly to the president, under the new governance system play a key role as the closest policy making and consultative/advisory bodies to the president.. Ministries are mainly responsible for the implementation of policies. Nine advisory councils affiliated to the President have been constituted in various policy areas; one of which is the Science, Technology and Innovation Policies Council (STIPC). The STIPC is the highest ranking advisory body on developments in STI policy, the monitoring of the national STI ecosystem and the introduction of STI policy strategies and recommendations. It does so in accordance with national goals for economic and social development and national security. It also makes further analysis and relevant advanced studies on the recommendations and actions approved by the President. The President of Turkey chairs the STIPC and appoints council members from among the top prominent academicians and leading private sector representatives from umbrella NGOs of industry, which has the capacity to represent major sectors. The council convenes once a week on a regular basis and reports to the President on a regular basis. The STIPC undertook the task of determining priority technology areas for Turkey, as part of the government’s third 100-day action plan. To this end, the Council has conducted numerous quantitative and qualitative analysis gathering statistical data and expert opinions to determine high impact and feasible technologies to focus RDI efforts on. The Council has also prepared the “National Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy and Action Plan”, which has been presented to the Ministers, Vice Ministers and senior representatives of NGOs via a high-level consultation meeting in September 2019. The plan introduces a novel approach, which is based on impacts and outputs of RDIs instead of only covering RDI inputs, in order to determine socio-economic targets for STI strategies. The expected outputs and short-term and medium/long-term strategies are determined thereafter. In July 2019, Turkey adopted the 11th National Development Plan (NDP) with a 5-year perspective, i.e. covering 2019-2023. The plan lays down the main pillars of STI policies, emphasizing the need to develop the capacity to produce and use knowledge and to focus R&D and innovation activities both in academia and in private sector that support high value-added production, particularly through an efficient R&D and innovation ecosystem. Additionally, the Plan emphasizes entrepreneurship and commercialization activities tailored for different actors in industry (SMEs, big size enterprises etc) and the transfer of knowledge and technology (enabling socio-economic impacts of R&D results). In line with these objectives, policy initiatives cover research universities, public (affiliated to ministries, universities or independent) and private research infrastructures, various forms of government and legislative measures. Moreover, the plan identifies critical technologies foreseen to generate the most value added in the coming period of 2019-2023, in order to support technological transformation and increased competitiveness in priority sectors accordingly. The following mid- and high-tech sectors are prioritised by the NDP: chemical industry, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, electronics, machine and electrical equipment, automotive industry and rail systems. The following technologies are prioritised: artificial intelligence, internet of things, augmented reality, big data, cyber security, energy storage, advanced materials, robotics, micro and nano-electromechanical systems (MEMS/NEMS), biotechnology, quantum technologies, and additive manufacturing. The targets for industry and technology are determined within the scope of the “2023 Industry and Technology Strategy”, which has been prepared and published by the Ministry of Industry and Technology in September 2019. It was set forth to mark the 100th anniversary of the Turkish Republic, aiming for a robust industry sector that effectively leverages technologies. The Strategy has 5 components: “High technology and Innovation”, “Digital Transformation and Industry Move”, Entrepreneurship”, “Human Resources” and “Infrastructure”. |
| United Kingdom | The reform of the research landscape set out in the government’s 2016 White Paper, “Success as a Knowledge Economy” has been taken forward. The establishment of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) since April 2018 has provided scope for maximising the contribution of each of the component parts – the seven Research Councils, Research England and Innovate UK – working individually and collectively. UKRI works with a broad range of partners to benefit everyone through knowledge, talent and ideas. It operates across the whole of the UK with a combined budget of more than £7 billion. |
| United States | This text comes from the 2017 STIP Survey: In August 2017, the Executive Office of the President released a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on the administrations research and development (R&D) priority areas for fiscal year (FY) 2019. The Memorandum identifies US leadership in science and technology as critical to achieving the US administrations highest priorities, namely: national security, economic growth and job creation. The US administration recognises that federal funding of R&D programmes and the US research infrastructure can play a crucial role in driving technological breakthroughs. The Memorandum directs departments and agencies to develop and utilise quantitative metrics to evaluate R&D outcomes; support innovative early-stage research; and maximise the co-ordination, promotion and planning of their R&D programmes through the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). The 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS), released in December 2017, identifies specific actions for the United States to "lead in research, technology, invention and innovation." The NSS states that the United States will build on the ingenuity that has launched industries, created jobs, and improved the quality of life at home and abroad. To maintain a competitive advantage, the United States will prioritise emerging technologies that are critical to economic growth and security, such as data science, encryption, autonomous technologies, gene editing, new materials, nanotechnology, advanced computing technologies and artificial intelligence. |