Innovating policy

In a report on innovation governance, the European Commission indicates that today there is widespread recognition that innovation makes a substantial contribution to our economic performance.

And furthermore, that innovation is about far more than building on the results of technological research. But innovation policy is not clear cut, so specific structures for policy making and implementation need to be developed across Europe.

A successful innovation policy means, in practice, that all policy makers are aware of the needs of innovation and actively consider them when making or implementing policy in their own fields.

Whether it is competition, taxation, regional, environmental or education policies, existing measures and practices may - implicitly or explicitly - hinder or discourage innovation.

Moreover, vested interests and incumbents will generally find it easier to gain the ear of policy makers than innovators trying to break through, so here too there is often an implicit bias against innovation.

So the challenge for European innovation policy is, first, to develop increased awareness of the significance of innovation across all policy fields. Then, secondly, to develop effective and efficient means of co-ordination through which we can ensure that conflicting policy aims are reconciled to the overall benefit of innovation and economic development.

Since policies are made and implemented at different levels - European, national, regional and local - these co-ordination mechanisms must necessarily take full account of that fact.

Many people are losing confidence in a poorly understood and complex system to deliver the policies they want. This is a key factor that led the Commission to adopt its White Paper on European Governance.

In innovation policy, current structures are overwhelmingly based on separate departments with limited interchange between them. The predominant perception of innovation is still that of a narrow, research-derived process. One of the Commission's communications in innovation policy made clear 'there are many other forms than research'.

It noted that there are 'three main dimensions impacting on the innovation terrain':

Policy governance, with policy set at local, regional, national, EU or even global level influencing the innovation capabilities and behaviour enterprises.

The sectoral dimension - although many factors affecting innovation are common to all sectors, some require specific policy responses to particular characteristics.

Interaction with other policy areas, as innovation must often be implemented via other policies, and innovation concepts must be increasingly embedded in many policy areas.

'These multiple dimensions confirm the ubiquitous nature of innovation policy - because innovation is everywhere, it is nowhere,' the communication notes.

In addition to calling for co-ordination across national government departments and at EU level, the communication argues that mechanisms need to be put in place for 'vertical' co-ordination so that policies interlock at EU, national and regional levels.

'Member State prerogatives in building their own national innovation systems must be preserved,' the communication continues.

'A common framework for overall co-ordination and coherence must, however, be present, with the objective of assisting national systems in extracting the maximum benefit from the European dimension.'

The Commission goes on to emphasise the need for co-ordination in policy: 'We must respect national diversity, but it is still possible to identify common objectives and develop a learning process at the European level.'

A former Member of Parliament, Gwilym Roberts chaired many House of Commons Committees covering business and consumer affairs and served in the DTI.