Monitoring Policy Making: Goals, processes and information demand aris.kaloudis@nifustep.no

1. Monitoring Policy Making: Goals, processes and information demand aris.kaloudis@nifustep.no CRIS 2010 5 June, Aalborg

2. Major policy trends – main drivers for monitoring • Lisbon agenda: 18 policy guidelines generating monitoring needs at the Member State level (at least six of these are relevant to research monitoring activities) • Bologna reforms • Knowledge Triangle • ERA (six pillars) • Researcher mobility • Infrastructures • Joint Programming • Third country collaborations • Efficient knowledge transfer • Quality of R&D organisations • Economic crisis

3. Policy Governance at the EU level • Lisbon governance instruments relies on the use of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) • OMC provides a voluntary framework where individual Member States can support the reform of their own policies through mutual learning, and peer review with the rest of Member States. • Integrated Guidelines (IGs) have allowed Member States the preparation of their “National Reform Programmes” (NRPs) and their annual “Progress Reports” (PRs). • Policy makers at the national and regional level are faced with a difficult dilemma – how to design effective policies which are both serving the interests of their constituents and helping Europe reach Lisbon objectives.

4. Monitoring: main objectives • Assessing progress • Benchmarking • Creating awareness and providing necessary knowledge intelligence services • Policy learning • Policy transfer “refer to a process in which knowledge about politics, administrative arrangements, institutions, etc. in one time or place is used in the development of policies, administrative arrangements in another time or place” (Dolowitz and March, 1996). Surprisingly little research is done for a better understanding of research and innovation policy learning processes.

5. Main actors: users articulating evaluation, monitoring and analytical needs • EC DG RTD • EC DG ENTR • EC DG EDUC • IPTS • Member States (Ministries) • Research Councils • What about R&D organisations (Universities, PROs etc)? • What about organisations such as University associations? • What about business sector associations?

6. Formalised policy experts networks in and for the Knowledge Triangle • INNO POLICY TrendChart (DG ENTR), • Sectoral Innovation Watch, • ERAWATCH (JRC IPTS, Seville /DG RTD) • EW University observatory • ETEPS • METRIS (other thematic-oriented networks??) • EURYDICE • ReferNET (CEDEFOP, Thessaloniki / DG EMPL)

7. Typical modes of work • Building the network • Design of country templates • Main focus: R&I policy goals in a the general policy context of the country, governance structures, efficiency, effectiveness, new trends, special focus themes • Design of policy measures templates • Design of other templates (key organisations, key documents, main R&D and Innovation programmes) • Presentation and analysis of basic indicators • Policy analysis and intelligence on the basis of ad hoc project work • Recommendations (?) • QUALITY ASSESSMENT IS A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE • Country correspondents

8. TrendChart -measures

9. Monitoring and assessment methodologies in INNO POLICY TC • Network established in 2000 (3 consecutive contracts) • Coverage of innovation policies in 41 countries, 41 policy experts (and institutions), national government contact points • The largest database on innovation policy measures in the world • From 2008 merge of the EW and TC policy measure databases • Analysis of national and regional governance systems • Identifying key challenges for policies based on a well-established indicator set (EIS) • Focus on appraisals of national innovation performance vs. economic performance • Assessing national reform programs linked to Lisbon-strategies • Flexibility: focus issues (creativity / policy on innovative SMES and gazelles in 2008 (policy intelligence tool for the DG ENTR – Innovation Policy Development Unit)

10. Stylised objectives

11. Types of policy learning in the area of research and innovation policy • Policy transfer: copying programs, measures, organisational structures/arrangements developed elsewhere • Lesson drawing: drawing on current experiences in other countries (regions) to improve own national policies. It can stimulate a government to adopt a novel measure or lead to the conclusion that what is deemed “best practice” elsewhere cannot or should not be introduced here. (Rose, 2001). • Benchmarking and ranking: PISA-studies and European Innovation Scoreboard as examples • Exchanging “good practices”: TC and EW serve the “Open Method of Coordination” approach, that is organising a learning process at the European level as a catalyst leading to improvement of national policies in the MS.

12. Types of policy learning in the area of research and innovation policy • Policy entrepreneurship: INNO-NETS and ERA-NETS as platforms for developing new ideas and types of policy instruments and enhancing creativity in the policy making processes

13. There is a need to be critical – and disinterested • There must be a critical distance and a common sense- based approach in all policy transfer processes. • ECs policies do exert considerable influence on national research and innovation policies, in particular in the new MS. Given the Barcelona and Lisboa goals and given the diversity of national economic and innovation systems in Europe, the issue of policy learning vs. policy copying becomes fundamental for Europe today • Example 1: High tech bias and copying R&D-programs in low tech dominated countries • Example 2: EIS and the Norwegian paradox

14. EIS-2007 – NORWAY

15. Evidence of policy learning facilitated by TC and EW • Quite a few cases of policy learning (at the policy measure level) between countries. • Analysis of policy learning mechanisms in TC and now in EW • Building new types of policy analysis competences • Increasing concern for need of coordination and interest in policy developments within different policy areas, such as, Education, Employment, Life Long Learning, Innovation, Research)

16. Bibliography • Cunningham P., M. Khaleel (2006): Transnational policy learning in Europe: Attempts to transfer innovation policy practices. Innovation: Management, policy & practice, 8 (3), October 2006, 262-272. • Dolowitz DP, D. March (1996): Who learns What from Whom: A Review of the Policy Transfer Literature. Political Studies 44, 343-357. • Dolowitz DP (2000): Introduction. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration 13 (1), 1-4. • Koch P. (2003): Good Practices in Nordic Innovation Policies Part 2. Nordic Industrial Fund report. June 2003. • Technopolis, Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Sydney (2001): An International Review of Methods to Measure Relative Effectiveness of Technology Policy Instruments. Report, July 2001. • Tsipouri L., A. Reid (2007): European Progress Report 2006. EUR 22410 European Commission. • Tsipouri L. (2001): Can we benchmark the contribution of research and development investment to growth and competitiveness? Science and Public Policy 28 (4), 295-302.