This study focuses on taxonomic and typological methods of innovation policies in the European institutional context. Although many types of policies affect innovation, no universally accepted criteria exist to classify them. As innovation policy in a myriad of thematic areas—systemic model—has become pluralized, this article offers a method for classification. Such policies are grouped and categorized according to biological and neofunctional approaches.
Akrich, M.
,
Callon, M.
, &
Latour, B.
(1988).
A quoi tient le succès des innovations?Annales Des Mines, 4,
29
.
2.
Alic, J.
(2002). Policies for innovation: Learning from the past . In
V. Norberg-Bohm
(Ed.), The role of government in technology innovation: Insights for government policy in the energy sector.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
.
3.
Alic, J.
,
Mowery, D.
, &
Rubin, E.
(2003).
U.S. technology and innovation policies: Lessons for climate change
.
Arlington, VA
: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
4.
Bernelmans-Videc, M.
,
Rist, R.
, &
Vedung, E.
(1998).
Carrots, sticks and sermons: Policy instruments & their evaluation
.
New Brunswick, NJ
: Transaction.
5.
Birkland, T.
(2001). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making.
Armonk, NY : Sharpe
.
6.
Blind, K.
,
Bührlen, B.
,
Menrad, K.
,
Hafner, S.
,
Walz, R.
, &
Kotz, C.
(2004). New products and services: Analysis of regulations shaping new markets. Karlsruhe, Germany: FraunhoferISI
.
7.
Bozeman, B.
(2000).
Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. ResearchPolicy, 29,
627-655
.
8.
Braczyk, H.
,
Cooke, P.
, &
Heidenreich, M.
(Eds.). (1998 ). Regional innovation systems: The role of governances in a globalized world.
London: University College London
.
9.
Breschi, S.
, &
Malerba, F.
(1997). Sectoral systems of innovation: Technological regimes, Schumpeterian dynamics and spatial boundaries. In
C. Edquist
(Ed.), Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions, and organizations.
London: Pinter
.
10.
Callon, M.
(1997). Actor-network theory: The market test. Keele, UK:
Keele University
,
Centre for Social Theory and Technology
.
11.
Carlsson, B.
(Ed.). (1995). Technological systems and economic performance: The case of factory automation. Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer
.
12.
Carlsson, B.
(Ed.). (1997). Technological systems and industrial dynamics. Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer
.
13.
Carlsson, B.
, &
Stankiewicz, R.
(1991).
On the nature, function and composition of technological systems
. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1,
93-118
.
14.
Cooke, P.
,
Gomez Uranga, M.
, &
Etxebarria, G.
(1997).
Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. ResearchPolicy , 26,
475-491
.
15.
den Hertog, P.
, &
de Groot, H.
(2005). Horizontal co-ordination of innovation policies: The case of information society in Netherlands. In Governance of innovation systems: Case studies in cross-sectoral policy.
Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
.
16.
Dodgson, M.
, &
Bessant, J.
(1996). E fective innovation policy: A new approach.
New York: International Thomson Business Press
.
17.
Doty, D.
, &
Glick, W.
(1994).
Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modelling
. Academy of Management Review, 19,
230-251
.
18.
Edquist, C.
(1997). Systems of innovation approaches: Their emergence and characteristics. In
C. Edquist
(Ed.), Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions, and organizations .
London: Pinter
.
19.
Edquist, C.
(2001). The system of innovation approach and innovation policy: An account of the state of the art.
Aalborg
,
Denmark: Nelson Winter Conference DRUID
.
20.
Edquist, C.
, &
Johnson, B.
(1997). Institutions and organizations in systems of innovation . In
C. Edquist
(Ed.), Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions, and organizations.
London: Pinter
.
21.
European Commission.
(1995).
Green paper: Innovation
. Communication, 688.
22.
European Commission.
(2000a). Innovation policy in a knowledge-based economy.
Luxembourg : Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
.
23.
European Commission.
(2000b).
Towards a European research area
. Communication, 6.
24.
European Commission.
(2001).
European governance: A white paper
. Communication, 428.
25.
European Commission.
(2003).
Innovation policy: Updating the Union's approach in the context of the Lisbon strategy
. Communication, 112.
26.
European Convention.
(2002).
Final report of working group VI on economic governance
. Convention, 357.
27.
European Council.
(2000). Lisbon European Council: Presidency conclusions.
Brussels
, Belgium:
Author
.
28.
Georghiou, L.
(2001).
Evolving frameworks for European collaboration in research and technology. ResearchPolicy, 30,
891-903
.
29.
Hart, D.
(2001).
Antitrust and technological innovation in the US: Ideas, institutions, decisions, and impacts, 1890—2000. ResearchPolicy, 30,
923-936
.
30.
Jaffe, A.
,
Newell, R.
, &
Stavins, R.
(2003).
Technology policy for energy and the environment
. In A. Jaffe, J. Lerner, & S. Stern (Eds.),
Innovation policy and the economy
.
Cambridge, MA
: National Bureau of Economic Research.
31.
Johnson, A.
(2001). Functions in innovation systems approaches.
Aalborg
, Denmark:
Nelson Winter Conference DRUID
.
32.
Kaiser, R.
, &
Prange, H.
(2004).
Managing diversity in a system of multi-level governance: The open method of co-ordination in innovation policy
. Journal of European Public Policy, 11,
249-266
.
33.
Kidd, C.
(1965). Basic research: Description versus definition . In
N. Kaplan
(Ed.), Science and society.
Chicago: Rand McNally
.
34.
Kuhlmann, S.
(2001).
Future governance of innovation policy in Europe: Three scenarios. ResearchPolicy, 30,
953-976
.
35.
Kuhlmann, S.
(2002).
Future governance of innovation policy in Europe
. In 2003 proceedings of the Innovation Policy Workshop on Future Directions of Innovation Policy in Europe (Innovation Papers No. 31). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
36.
Kusch, M.
(2004). Knowledge by agreement: The programme of communitarian epistemology. Oxford, UK:
Clarendon
.
37.
Lascoumes, P.
, &
Le Gales, P.
(2007).
Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments—From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation
. Governance, 20,
1-21
.
38.
Latour, B.
(1993). We have never been modern.
London: Harvester Wheatsheaf
.
39.
Linder, S.
, &
Peters, B.
(1984).
From social theory to policy design
. Journal of Public Policy, 4,
237-259
.
40.
Lundvall, B.
(1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning.
London: Pinter
.
41.
Lundvall, B.
, &
Borrás, S.
(2005). Science, technology, and innovation policy. In
J. Fagerberg
,
D. Mowery
, &
R. Nelson
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press
.
42.
Lundvall, B.
,
Johnson, B.
,
Andersen, E.
, &
Dalum, B.
(2002).
National systems of production, innovation and competence building. ResearchPolicy, 31,
2132-2231
.
43.
Luria, S.
,
Gould, S.
, &
Singer, S.
(1981). A view of life.
Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin
-
Cummings
.
44.
Malerba, F.
(2002).
Sectoral systems of innovation and production. ResearchPolicy, 31,
247-264
.
45.
March, J.
, &
Olsen, J.
(1996).
Institutional perspectives on political institutions
. Governance, 9,
247-264
.
46.
Metcalfe, S.
(2000). Science policy and technology policy in a competitive economy. In
C. Edquist
&
M. McKelvey
(Eds.), Systems of innovation: Growth, competitiveness and employment.
Cheltenham: Elgar
Reference Collection.
47.
Meyer-Krahmer, F.
, &
Kuntze, U.
(1992). Bestandsaufnahme der Forschungs—und Technologiepolitik . In
K. Grimmer
,
J. Häusler
,
S. Kuhlmann
, &
G. Simonis
(Eds.), Politische Techniksteuerung— Forschungsstand und Forschungsperspektiven.
Leske
:
Opladen
.
48.
Nelson, R.
(1993). National innovation system.
New York: Oxford University Press
.
49.
Ohmae, K.
(1993). The end of the nation state: How region states harness the prosperity of the global economy.
New York : Free Press
.
50.
Rogers, E.
(1995). Di fusion of innovations.
New York: Free Press
.
51.
Rothwell, R.
, &
Dodgson, M.
(1992).
European technology policy evolution: Convergence towards SMEs and regional technology transfer
. Technovation , 12,
223-238
.
52.
Rubin, E.
(2001). Introduction to engineering and the environment .
Boston: McGraw-Hill
.
53.
Salazar-Acosta, M.
(2005). Theories on technology and society.
Vancouver: Simon Fraser University
,
Centre for Policy Research on Science and Technology
.
54.
Schumpeter, J.
(1939). Business cycles: A theoretical, historical, and statistical analysis of the capitalist process.
New York : McGraw-Hill
.
55.
Shapira, P.
, &
Klein, H.
(2001).
Innovations in European and US innovation policy. ResearchPolicy, 30,
869-872
.
56.
Simondon, G.
(1958). Du mode d'existence des objets techniques.
Paris: Aubier
.
Smits, R.
, &
Kuhlmann, S.
(2002).
Strengthening interfaces in innovation systems: Rationale, concepts and (new) instruments
. In Proceedings of the workshop “New challenges and new responses for S&T policies in Europe.”Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, Directorate General for Research.
59.
Spiegel-Rösing, I.
(1977). The study of science, technology and society (SSTS): Recent trends and future challenges. In
I. Spiegel-Rösing
&
D. de Solla Price
(Eds.), Science, technology and society.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
.
60.
Sqw.
(2006). Exploring the relationship between environmental regulation and competitiveness: A literature review .
London: SQW Economic and Management Consultants
.
61.
Stokes, D.
(1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
.
62.
Ziman, J.
(2000). Real science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press
.
63.
Ziman, J.
(2005).
Knowledge by agreement
. Minerva , 43,
289-295
.
