Understanding STIP Compass’ policy debates data: What are they and how to use them

Authors: Isabella Lopez and David Howoldt

Date: 5/02/2026

Understanding how countries frame their science, technology and innovation (STI) priorities is critical for effective policy learning. Data collected by the OECD and the European Commission’s biennial STIP Survey shed light on national STI policy discussions across 63 countries and the European Union. They offer first-hand input from national experts on themes such as governance, entrepreneurship, knowledge exchange, skills, societal challenges, and net-zero transitions, giving policymakers and researchers alike a snapshot of evolving priorities and challenges. This data story aims to help analysts navigate the dataset, clarify its structure, and illustrate its potential uses and analytical approaches.

Introducing the data

The policy debates data capture qualitative information on key national discussions taking place around critical areas of science, technology, and innovation (STI) policy. The data are collected through dedicated questions for each of the seven thematic areas covered by the STIP Compass across all participating countries. These areas are Governance, Public research system, Innovation in firms and innovative entrepreneurship, Knowledge exchange and co-creation, Human resources for research and innovation, Research and innovation for society, and Net-zero transitions. The purpose of the data collection is to identify emerging visions and shifts in policy directions across these various domains of STI policy.

These data are a unique resource for policy analysis, as they provide first-hand insights from national experts on current priorities and challenges in STI. They are collected through the STIP Survey, a biennial country-level expert survey on STI policies, jointly conducted by the OECD and the European Commission. Covering 63 countries and the EU, the survey gathers information on both policy debates and ongoing STI policy initiatives, including strategies, programmes, and action plans. The survey is addressed to national government officials involved in STI policy across various public bodies, such as ministries and agencies, and is administered through an online questionnaire. Once submitted, all responses are reviewed by the OECD-STIP Compass team and consequently used to generate dashboards, analytical notes, and searchable content on the STIP Compass portal.

The policy debates data are available on the STIP Compass website via the country dashboards organised by policy area. Additional insights are provided in the overarching analyses of the 2025 and 2023 editions of the STIP Survey datasets, along with searchable versions of the data. . The data is also available for download from the data section on the STIP data lab webpage for further analysis and processing.

Understanding the data

There are several ways in which policymakers, analysts, and researchers can analyse and interpret the policy debates data. Some of the key insights that can be extracted from the debates include:

Current priorities in STI policy: The data highlights the STI areas currently at the top of national agendas, from specific technologies (e.g., AI, quantum and biotech) to broader goals such as the green and digital transitions or strengthening resilience in critical value chains. Understanding these priorities helps identifywhere governments focus attention and resources, and how these areas shift over time.
Current policy actions: The data outlines the policy actions countries are implementing or planning (e.g., new funding schemes, regulatory reforms, industry partnerships, or ecosystem-strengthening initiatives). This helps analysts understand how countries translate stated priorities into policy actions.
Key challenges or barriers in STI policymaking: The data also reveals persistent or emerging challenges that countries face in advancing their STI agendas, including issues of coordination, capacity, financing, or stakeholder engagement. Identifying these barriers helps build a clearer understanding of systemic constraints and highlights areas where further policy effort or experimentation may be needed.

What do the policy debates data look like?

For each of the seven thematic areas covered by the STIP Compass survey (see introduction), answers to the policy debate questions summarise the main ongoing discussions and related policy issues in about 2-3 paragraphs. For example, under the theme of innovation in firms and innovative entrepreneurship, the responses outline discussions on business innovation systems and associated policy challenges, including key debates on government support for business innovation and innovative entrepreneurship. The two text boxes below illustrate the type and scope of statements contained in the data by providing selected examples of country responses.

“In Costa Rica, an active policy debate is underway on transitioning from fragmented and small-scale innovation subsidies toward a more integrated, strategic, and results-oriented innovation support system. Stakeholders from government, academia, and the private sector have emphasized the need for a coherent policy framework that supports firms across different scales—ranging from microenterprises to high-potential, technology-based ventures. In this context, discussions are advancing on redesigning support instruments based on clearer performance criteria, innovation potential, and alignment with national priorities such as sustainability and digital transformation. This prospective redesign aims to improve coordination among funding agencies, leverage co-investment schemes, and foster innovation ecosystems that generate greater value and scalability, especially outside the capital region.

A central topic of discussion is the establishment of public-private co-investment schemes and innovation-focused venture capital to bridge the critical funding gap often referred to as the “valley of death” (78% in 2023) for SMEs. Additionally, policymakers are considering regulatory reforms to facilitate alternative financing mechanisms, such as crowdfunding, and to encourage private R&D investment through tax credits. Emerging strategies highlight the importance of supporting scale-ups, deep tech ventures, and regional entrepreneurship hubs. These debates are guiding legislative and institutional reforms, although the structural implementation of these changes is still pending.”

Source: Costa Rica’s response to the policy debates question, STIP Compass 2025

“One of the central issues in government support for business innovation and innovative entrepreneurship is the debate around deregulation, specifically the transition from a positive to a negative regulatory system. Historically, Korea has operated under a positive regulatory system since the onset of industrialisation, which was primarily designed to boost the manufacturing industries and facilitate the acquisition of advanced technologies. This system mandates explicit permission for business activities, thereby establishing a primary layer of control. Under this regime, businesses are required to assume risk for any actions not explicitly authorised by law, contrasting with a negative regulatory system that delineates only the activities that are prohibited.

This established positive regulatory framework, combined with pervasive informal regulatory practices, has been criticised for creating uncertainty and hindering digital innovation. Critics have advocated for the dismantling of this system in favour of increased transparency to create a more favourable environment for innovation, particularly in the digital sector.

In response to these criticisms, numerous national presidents have emphasised the importance of deregulation and have mandated significant reforms aimed at transitioning the Korean regulatory system to a negative model. However, these efforts have consistently encountered formidable resistance from political, bureaucratic, and social sectors, persisting for decades. Consequently, the Korean government has opted for implementing partial deregulatory measures. These include the introduction of Sandboxes, which apply negative regulation at the programme level, and a more lenient interpretation of existing regulatory laws.”

Source: Korea’s response to the policy debates question, STIP Compass 2025

Analysing the data

The policy debates data open several avenues for analysis:

Providing context for understanding national STI policies: On each country dashboard, the policy debates offer a quick overview of the national STI landscape, summarising the main issues under discussion andhelping users understand situate specific policy initiatives within a broader policy context.
Using the debates for qualitative analysis and comparison: The debates can also be used to examine national or regional STI policy discussions and compare policy landscapes across countries. Given its volume, large language models can help summarise and explore the data.
Applying computational methods for in-depth text analysis: Semantic or computational techniques, such as topic modelling, can help identify common themes and patterns across country debates, offering a more systematic and quantitative overview of the data. These methods can highlight emerging topics or shifts in emphasis over time but typically require coding skills and some familiarity with natural language processing.

The text boxes below provide two examples of qualitative analysis of the debate data, supported with ChatGPT, an LLM provided by OpenAI. For this analysis, prompts were drafted in an iterative process and passed to the LLM alongside the responses from all countries participating in the STIP Survey to the debate question on innovation in firms and innovative entrepreneurship.

Input

Click to show the output on the right

Show output

Based on the text I will provide, draft a summary of the three most frequently mentioned actions that countries are currently undertaking in the area of business and entrepreneurship.

Your response must meet the following criteria:

Structure your answer in the form of a list.
The list must contain exactly three bullet points, each starting with a dash ("-").
Each bullet point should describe a single key item, reflecting what is most commonly mentioned across countries, and should provide a global overview rather than specific country examples.

Important: Base your answer only on the content of the text. Do not invent themes that are not supported by the discussion.

Output

Governments are increasingly promoting public-private collaboration and technology transfer through innovation hubs, incubators, digital platforms, and partnerships between businesses, universities, and research institutions to strengthen innovation ecosystems.
Many countries are providing financial incentives and funding mechanisms (e.g., tax credits, grants, venture capital funds, and co-investment schemes) to stimulate business R&D, support start-ups, and scale innovative enterprises.
There is a strong policy focus on digital transformation and strategic innovation agendas, with governments supporting SME digitalisation, deep-tech sectors, and green innovation in line with broader national or regional strategies.

Input

Click to show the output on the right

Show output

Based on the text I will provide, draft a summary of the three most frequently mentioned challenges that countries are encountering in the area of business and entrepreneurship.

Your response must meet the following criteria:

Structure your answer in the form of a list.
The list must contain exactly three bullet points, each starting with a dash ("-").
Each bullet point should describe a single key item, reflecting what is most commonly mentioned across countries, and should provide a global overview rather than specific country examples.

Important: Base your answer only on the content of the text. Do not invent themes that are not supported by the discussion.

Output

Limited access to finance and funding gaps remains widespread, particularly for start-ups and SMEs, including barriers to venture capital, complex funding procedures, and insufficient private sector investment in R&D.
Regulatory and administrative burdens are frequently cited as obstacles, with complex, fragmented, or outdated frameworks slowing innovation adoption and discouraging entrepreneurship.
Coordination and ecosystem integration issues (e.g., as weak links between research and industry, fragmented policy instruments, and uneven regional development) undermine the effectiveness of innovation policies.

Limitations of the data

A number of limitations shape how the policy debates data can be interpreted and used analytically. Because responses are provided by different national contact points, the depth, clarity, and overall quality of information vary considerably across countries. The focus and content of the answers are also inconsistent, often differing in scope, emphasis, and level of detail, which makes cross-country comparisons challenging and limits the ability to draw uniform conclusions. In addition, the information is self-reported by national representatives, meaning it reflects what countries choose to highlight and may therefore be incomplete or omit sensitive or contentious issues.

Despite these caveats, the data remain a valuable source of information for policy analysis. They provide first-hand insights into the discussions and priorities shaping national STI policies, offering a unique view of how governments are addressing current issues and emerging challenges. This makes STIP Compass’ policy debates data a useful resource for understanding policy developments and supporting more informed decision making in STI.

Conclusion

The STIP Compass policy debates data offer a unique opportunity to explore how countries are shaping their STI agendas. By capturing first-hand perspectives from national experts, the data help identify priorities, policy actions, and challenges across a wide range of thematic areas. While variations in quality, completeness, and comparability require careful interpretation, the debates remain a valuable qualitative resource for understanding the dynamics of STI policymaking.

Whether used to contextualise national strategies, support qualitative comparisons, or enable more advanced text analysis, they provide a foundation for richer evidence-based policy learning. As interest in forward-looking and adaptive STI policy continues to grow, these data can help analysts, researchers, and decisions-makers gain clearer insights into evolving policy landscapes and the issues shaping them.