Innovation policy is in need of a rationale which allows for the design and evaluation of policy instruments. In economic policy, focus has traditionally been placed on market failures, and efficiency measures have been used to decide whether policy should intervene and which instrument should be applied. In innovation policy, this rationale cannot be meaningfully applied because of the uncertain and open character of innovation processes. Uncertainty is not a market failure and cannot be repaired. Inevitably, policy makers are subject to failure and their goals cannot pragmatically be represented by a social optimum. In eschewing the concept of ‘optimal innovation’, avoiding evolutionary inefficiencies becomes central to analysis and to innovation policy making. Superimposed on the several sources of evolutionary inefficiencies are so-called ‘network inefficiencies’. Because of the widespread organization of innovation into innovation networks, network structures and dynamics give useful hints for where and when innovation policy should intervene.

PAGES
265 – 279
DOI
All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Issues
Also in this issue:
-
Agnes Horvath, Magic and the Will to Science: A Political Anthropology of Liminal Technicality
-
Gibson Burrell, Ronald Hartz, David Harvie, Geoff Lightfoot, Simon Lilley and Friends, Shaping for Mediocrity: The Cancellation of Critical Thinking at our Universities
-
Bas de Boer, How Scientific Instruments Speak: Postphenomenology and Technological Mediations in Neuroscientific Practice
-
Bjørn Lomborg, False Alarm
-
How does innovation arise in the bicycle sector? The users’ role and their betrayal in the case of the ‘gravel bike’