Unintended consequences of innovation policy programmes: Social evaluation of the technological projects programme in Croatia

Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 77-94

  Svarc, Jadranka ^a   Laznjak, Jasminka ^b   Perkovic, Juraj ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES IVO PILAR   (Croatia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB   (Croatia)

Author keywords

Croatia; Innovation policy programme; Institutional theory; Social evaluation; Technology projects

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955004057     PISSN: 14479338     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5172/impp.2011.13.1.77     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Akcomak, S and Ter Weel, B 2009. Social capital, innovation and growth: Evidence from Europe European Economic Review 53, 544-567.
2. Albert, M., Laberge, S. (2007), The legitimation and dissemination process of the innovation system approach: The case of the Canadian and Quebec science and technology policy, Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 23, No. 2, p. 221-249.
3. Arnold, E 2004. Evaluating research and innovation policy: A systems world needs a systems evaluation. Research Evaluation, 13(1), 3-17.
4. Bežovan, G 2003. Indicators of Civil Society Development in Croatia, Društvena istraživanja, 12, 3-4, 495-518 (in Croatian).
5. Bozeman, B 2005. Public Value Mapping of Science Outcomes: Theory and Method. A Monograph of the Public Value Mapping Project. Washington, DC: Center for Science, Policy and Outcomes, Columbia University.
6. Didero, M Gareis, K Marques P Ratzke M 2008. Differences in Innovation Culture Across Europe - A Discussion Paper (available on line: http://www.transform-eu.org/publications/documents/Differences%20in%20Innovation%20Culture.pdf. (Last access: June 2nd, 2010.
7. Edquist, C 1997. Systems of Innovation Approaches - Their Emergence and Characteristics. In Systems of innovation - Technologies, institutions and organizations, ed. C Edquist. London: Pinter Publishers/Cassell Academic.
8. Edquist, C 2001. The Systems of Innovation Approach and Innovation Policy: An account of the state of the art, Lead paper presented at the DRUID Conference, Aalborg, June 12-15, 2001.
9. Edquist, C, T Luukkonen and M Sotarauta 2009. Broad-Based Innovation Policy. In Ministry of Education: Evaluation of the Finnish National Innovation System - Full Report. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
10. Etzkowitz, H 1998 The Norms of Entrepreneurial Science: Cognitive Effects of the New University-Industry Linkages, Research Policy 27, 823-33.
11. Etzkowitz H 2002. MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science, Routledge, London, UK.
12. Etzkowitz, H 2003. Learning from transition: The Triple Helix as an innovation system. In Transition Countries in the Knowledge Society: Socioeconomic Analysis, eds. J Švarc, J Lažnjak, Z Šporer and D Polšek. Institute of Social Sciences, Ivo Pilar Zagreb: Zagreb, 39-61.
13. Etzkowitz, H 2008 The Triple Helix University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action, Routledge, London, UK.
14. European Council (2000), Conclusions of the Presidency of the Lisbon European Council of 23 and 24 March 2000, Council document 100/1/00.
15. Fagerberg, J. and Srholec, M. 2008. National innovation systems, capabilities and economic development, Research Policy 37, 1417-1435.
16. Freeman, C. 1988. Japan: a new national innovation system, In: Dosi, G. at al (eds.), Technical change and economic theory, Pinter Publisher Limited, London, pp. 330-349.
17. Geels, F W 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems, Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory, Research Policy 33, 897-920.
18. Georghiou, L and D Roessner 2000. Evaluating technology programs: tools and methods, Research Policy, 29, 657-678.
19. Gibbons, M, C Limoges, H Nowotny, S Schwartzman, P Scott and M Trow 1994. The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies, London: SAGE.
20. Hsu, D H, Roberts, E B, Eesley, C E 2007. Entrepreneurs from technology-based universities: Evidence from MIT, Research Policy 36, 768-788.
21. Jain, S Georg, G Maltarich, M 2009. Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity, Research Policy 38 922-935.
22. Kuhlmann, S 2003. Evaluation as a source of strategic intelligence. In Learning from science and technology policy evaluation, eds. P Shapira and S Kuhlmann, pp.352-381. UK and USA: Edward Elgar.
23. Kuhlmann, S 2006. Evolution of research evaluation. Lecture in R&D Evaluation Course 2006. University of Twente, The Netherlands.
24. Lundvall, B A 1992, National system of innovations: Towards theory of innovation and interactive learning, Pinter Publishers, London.
25. Lundvall, B.A, Borras, S. 1997, The globalizing learning economy: Implications for innovation policy. Report based on contributions from seven projects under TSER Program. DG XII, Commission of the European Union.
26. Luukkonen, T 2002. Research evaluation in Europe: State of the art, Research Evaluation, 11(2), 81-84.
27. Merton, R K 1936. The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action, American Sociological Review, 1(6), 894-904.
28. Merton, Robert K. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure, New York: Free Press.
29. Molas-Gallart J and A Davies 2006. Toward Theory-Led Evaluation: The Experience of European Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy. American Journal of Evaluation, 27 (1), 64-82.
30. MOST 2002. Croatian Program for Innovative Technological Development (HITRA), the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Croatia, Zagreb.
31. MOST 2002a. Directives for the implementation of the HITRA Programme, the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Croatia, Zagreb.
32. MOST 2002b. Collected Programmatic papers of the HITRA programme, the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Croatia, Zagreb, pp. 78.
33. Mytelka, L K Smith, K 2002 Policy learning and innovation theory: An interactive and co-evolving process, Research Policy 31, 1567-1479.
34. Nelson, R R and S G Winter 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
35. Perrin, B 2002. How to - and How Not to - Evaluate Innovation. Evaluation, 8(1), 13-28.
36. Roessner, J D 2002. Outcome measurement in the USA: State of the art. Research Evaluation, 11(2), 85-93.
37. Smits, R and S Kuhlmann 2004. The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy. Int. J. Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1(172), 4-32.
38. Stuart, T E Ding, W W 2006. When Do Scientists Become Entrepreneurs? The Social Structural Antecedents of Commercial Activity in the Academic Life Sciences, American Journal of Sociology, 112 (1), 97-144.
39. Štulhofer, A 2004. Perception of Corruption and the Erosion of Social Capital in Croatia 1995-2003 Politička misao, Vol. XLI, No. 5, pp. 74-86.
40. Švarc, J 2006. Socio-political factors and the failure of innovation policy in Croatia as a country in transition. Research Policy, 35(1), 144-159.
41. Švarc, J, J Lažnjak and Z Šporer 2009. Social Capital and Innovation Policy in Croatia: Scientific Community as a Source of Innovation, In: Social Capital, eds. G Tripp, M Payne, D Diodorus, p. 15-48, New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
42. Van Looy, B Ranga. M Callaert, J Debackere, K Zimmermann, E 2004 Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect?, Research Policy 33, 425-441.
43. Županov J 1987. "Egalitarism and industrialism", in: Sociology and self-management, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, pp. 281 (in Croatian).