Political constraints and methodological challenges in the social impact assessment of R&D and innovation policies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-1038Keywords:
regional policies of R&D and innovation, socioeconomic evaluation, social impactAbstract
This article makes a conceptual and methodological exploration about the integration of the Social Impact Evaluation (EIS) and the R&D and innovation policies. Aiming at advancing toward mechanisms able to effectively evaluate the social impact of the R&D and innovation projects presented to the public calls of the Spanish regional policies, the paper offers three partial results. First, an identification of five conditionings that shape the formulation and evaluation of these policies. Second, a methodological framework that allows to clarify criteria, moments and functions of the EIS. Finally, an identification and categorization of the barriers and facilitating conditions that must be taken into account to make a viable proposal of EIS.
Downloads
References
ARCHIBUGI, D. y PIETROBELLI C. (2003): “The Globalisation of Technology and its Implications for Developing Countries. Windows of Opportunity or Further Burden?” Technology Forecasting & Social Change, 70.
BODEN, M. y STERN, E. (2002): “User Perspectives”, en G. Fahrenkrog et al. (eds.), RTD Evaluation Toolbox. Assessing the Socio-Economic Impact of RTD-Policies, Seville, European Commission-Joint Research Centre, IPTS, pp. 1-14.
CARACOSTAS, P. y MULDUR, U. (1998): Society, the Endless Frontier, Luxemburgo, Office for Official publications of the European Commission.
CICYT (2003): Plan nacional de Investigación Científica, Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica 2004-2007. Volumen I: Objetivos y estructura, Madrid.
COMISIÓN EUROPEA (2000): Ciencia, sociedad y ciudadanos en Europa, Bruselas.
COMISIÓN EUROPEA (2002): Plan de Acción Ciencia y Sociedad, Luxemburgo, Oficina de Publicaciones Oficiales de las Comunidades Europeas.
COTEC (2004): El sistema español de innovación. Situación en 2004, Madrid, COTEC.
DÍEZ, M. A. (2002): “Evaluating New Regional Policies. Reviewing the Theory and Practice”, Evaluation, 8, 3, pp. 285-305.
DOSI, G. (1982): “Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. A suggested interpretation of determinants and directions of technological change”, Research Policy, 11, pp. 147-162.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2003a): The overall socio-economic dimension of community research in the fifth European framework programme, Luxemburgo, Office of Official Publications of the European Commission.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2003b): Raising EU R&D Intensity. Improving the Effectiveness of Public Support Research and Development, Luxemburgo, Office of Official Publications of the European Commission.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2003c): 2003 European innovation Scoreboard: Technical Paper No 5. National Innovation Systems Indicators, Enterprise DG, disponible en http://www.cordis.lu/trendchart
FAHRENKROG, G. et al. [eds.] (2002): RTD Evaluation Toolbox. Assessing the Socio-Economic Impact of RT D-Policies, Seville, European Commission-Joint Research Centre, IPTS.
FAHZENKROG, G., TÜBKE, A., POLT, W. y ROJO, J. (2002): “Avenues for RTD-Evaluation in the future policy context”, en G. Fahrenkrog et al. (eds.), RTD Evaluation Toolbox. Assessing the Socio- Economic Impact of RTD-Policies, Seville, European Commission-Joint Research Centre, IPTS, pp. 210-217.
FERNÁNDEZ, F., HAESEN, G., y VENCHIARUTTI, J-C. (2002): “From collaborative initiatives to holistic innovation”. High Level Task Force on Valuation and capitalization of Intellectual Assets (First Meeting), United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
FREDERIKSEN, L.F., HANSSON, F. y WENNEBERG, S.B (2003): “The Agora and the Role of Research Evaluation”, Evaluation, 9, 2, pp. 149-172
FREEMAN, C. (1987): Technology policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan, Londres, Pinter.
GEORGHIOU, L. (1998): “Issues in the Evaluation of Innovation and Technology Policy”, Evaluation, 4, 1, pp. 37-52.
GEORGHIOU, L. (2001): “The impact and Utility of Evaluation”, Conference on International best practices in evaluation of research in public institutes and universities, Bruselas, 16.10.01.
GEORGHIOU, L. y ROESSNER, D. (2000): “Evaluating technology programmes: tools and methods”, Research Policy, 29, pp. 657-678.
GIBBONS et al. (1994): The new production of knowledge, Londres, Sage.
KEMP, R., SCHOT, J. y HOOGMA, R. (1998): “Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Junio, 10.2, pp. 175-195.
KUHLMANN, S. (2002): “Distributed Techno-Economic Intelligence for Policymaking”, en G. Fahrenkrog et al. (eds.), RTD Evaluation Toolbox. Assessing the Socio-Economic Impact of RTD-Policies, Seville, European Commission-Joint Research Centre, IPTS, pp. 210-217.
KUHLMANN, S. et al. (1999): “Improving Distributed intelligence in Complex Innovation Systems. Final Report of the Advanced Science and Technology Policy Planning Network, ASTPP”, A Thematic Network of the European Targeted Socio-Economic Research. Programme TSER: Report to Commission of the European Communities Contract No. SOE1-CT96-1013.
MAIRATE, A. (2003): “La evaluación de los fondos estructurales: aspectos metodológicos y teóricos”, en Ogando y Miranda, Evaluación de programas e iniciativas europeas: experiencias, nuevas orientaciones y buenas prácticas, Valladolid, Instituto de Estudios Europeos de la Universidad de Valladolid.
MARCURE, J. (2004): “Towards sustainable innovation: New directions in RTO marketing”, TII Focus - Newsletter of the T.I.I. Network of Technology Transfer Professionals, pp. 6-9.
MIRANDA ESCOLAR, B. (2003): “Evaluación del programa operativo Regional FEOGA-Orientación de Castilla y León (1994-1999): Metodología y principales resultados”, en Ogando y Miranda, Evaluación de programas e iniciativas europeas: experiencias, nuevas orientaciones y buenas prácticas, Valladolid, Instituto de Estudios Europeos de la Universidad de Valladolid.
MOÑUX, D., ALEIXANDRE, G., GÓMEZ, F.J. y MIGUEL, L.J. (2003): Evaluación de impacto social de proyectos de I+D+I. Guía práctica para centros tecnológicos, Valladolid, CARTIF - Departamento de Ingeniería de Sistemas y Automática de la Universidad de Valladolid.
OECD (1992): Technology and the Economy, The key relationships, París.
OSUNA, J.L, GRÁVALOS, E. y PALACIOS, C. (2003): Modelos de protocolos para la evaluación de actividades de I+D e innovación, Madrid, FECYT.
PAVITT, K. (1984): “Sectoral Patterns of Technology Change: Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory”, Research Policy, 13, 6, pp. 343-373.
PERRIN, B. (2002): “How to -and How Not To- Evaluate Innovation”, Evaluation, 8, 1, pp. 13-28.
POLT, W. y ROJO, J. (2002): “Evaluation methodologies - Introduction”, en G. Fahrenkrog et al. (eds.), RTD Evaluation Toolbox. Assessing the Socio-Economic Impact of RTD-Policies, Seville, European Commission-Joint Research Centre, IPTS, pp. 65-70.
PORTER, M.A (1990): The Competitive Advantage of Nations, The Free Press.
QUINTANILLA, M. A. y BRAVO, A. (1997): Cultura tecnológica e innovación. Primera parte: el concepto de cultura tecnológica, Informe para la fundación COTEC.
RIP, A. (2003): “Societal Challenges for R&D Evaluation”, en P. Shapira y S. Kuhlmann (eds.), Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation. Experiences from the United States and Europe, Cheltenham-Northampton, Edward Elgar, pp. 32-53.
RIP, A. y KEMP, R. (1998): “Technological Change”, en S. Rayner y L. Malone (eds.),
Human Choice and Climate Change. Volume II Resources and Te c h n o l o g y,
Washington D.C., Batelle Press, pp. 327-399.
VÁZQUEZ BARQUERO (1999): Desarrollo, innovación y redes: lecciones de desarrollo endógeno, Madrid, Pirámide.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 CC Attribution 4.0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
