Last modified: 2016-06-11
Abstract
The paper starts with a review of the literature about the National Systems of Innovation (NSI), by linking the origin of the concept to the evolutionary theory of firm and innovation (Schumpeter 1912; Nelson and Winter 1982). The evolutionary theory of the firm is about how firms learn through imperfect adaptation and mistake-ridden discovery. Moreover, technological knowledge leading to innovations is partially context-specific and difficult to transfer due to its ‘tacit’ elements, embodied in routines, expertise and skills.
The first theoretical point addressed by the paper relates to some flaws in the NSI concept. The NSI literature aims to develop a theoretical framework to understand the most important elements boosting firms’ ability to innovate. At that time, three books became the landmark for the development of the NSI concept: Technology Policy and Economic Performance. Lessons from Japan by Freeman (1987); National Systems of Innovation. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning by Lundvall (1992); and National Innovation Systems. A Comparative Analysis by Nelson (1993). By looking at these authors’ definitions the paper highlights some flaws of the theoretical concept.
As the concept developed, many theoretical as well as empirical works have been sharing the same methodological approach: the key elements of a NSI must be identified and, when possible, measured; comparative analysis among different NSI must be carried out, in order to find the ‘best’ one, and use it as a benchmark for other countries. So, the theoretical tool of NSI becomes a normative one and the supply-side orientation of its public elements has never been questioned. Government policy towards innovation is relegated to a regulative task (markets, property rights, education, etc. must be regulated in order to foster innovation). Moreover, since firms are the main agents of innovative activities, the state has no direct control over which type of innovation and for whom. The direct intervention of the state to the innovative activities is not called for. Only some policy of incentives/disincentives are admissible.
After addressing the weaknesses of the conceptualization of the state within the NSI, the last point refers to a new way to look at innovations. The suggestion, here, is towards the need for a stronger and more direct state interventions in innovative activities, especially those presenting strong social consequences. As Mazzuccato (2013) shows, the state has always been a fundamental, but indirect, actor for the development of certain innovations in certain sectors. Yet, I think that this is not enough, especially in a period of crisis. The state should address innovative activities towards more basic and social needs, thus becoming an innovator of first resort.