Toolbox for Innovation Policy: Regional Innovation System (RIS)

       The "System of Innovation" is a tool for analysing the components, functions and activities in a region -country or sector- allowing for the development, diffusion and use of innovation (Edquist 2006). This approach was developed during the 80s (Lundvall), 90s (Freeman, Cooke) and 2000s (Asheim, Edquist), "becoming a powerful organising metaphor in policy programmes, research projects and public debate” (Miettinen 2002).

       This tool has a holistic and interdisciplinary nature, including "all important economic, social, political, organizational, institutional and other factors that influence the development, diffusion and use of innovations” (Edquist 2006; 4). A "Regional Innovation System" (RIS) is evolutionary and constructed historically in a singular place; therefore, the approach considers the dynamism and constant change of its components, functions and activities, as well as the fact that these elements are not always the same or play their role with similar intensity everywhere, but they are strongly path dependent in every geographical, social, cultural, political and economic context.

       Edquist explains the functioning of the "system of innovation" as a complex mechanism in which path-dependent institutions frame the scene and the behaviour of the actors of the system -organisations and individuals-, which bring about innovation through their interrelated activities based on competition, cooperation and transactions (2006). Although we cannot build a comprehensive, concrete and generally applicable list, we can identify however some of the most common elements in a RIS:

• Institutions are “sets of common habits, norms, routines, established practices, rules or laws that regulate the relations and interactions between individuals, groups and organisations” (Ibid.; 3), that are constructed historically, showing a strong path-dependent inertia and differing between places and along time. From a political science perspective, we could break institutions into:
  • Formal institutions: law, policy, polity, state
  • Informal institutions: traditions, social norms, and
  • Culture: attitudes, values and opinions
    
    
• The actors are an ensemble of organisations and individuals playing on the stage set by the institutional framework towards the development and diffusion of innovation. These are some of the most common actors present in a "regional innovation system" (Cooke et al. 1997; Carlsson et al. 2002):
  • Entrepreneurs
  • Firms
  • Public and private research centres (universities, labs, research institutes, etc.)
  • Skill development organisations (universities, vocational training, etc.)
  • Technology transfer agencies (science and technology parks, etc.)
  • Public investment agencies for innovation
  • Private funding for innovation (venture capital, etc.)
  • Public policy agencies related to innovation (R&D, education, enterprise, etc.)
  • Consultants on innovation
  • Non-firm organisations involved in innovation 
     
• The interrelated activities constitute the flow among the different actors that influence and are influenced by the system as a whole (Carlsson et al. 2002). They ultimately allow innovations to happen. Some of the most important activities identified by Carlsson et al. (2002) and Edquist (2006) are R&D, upgrading human capital, opening to new markets, creation and change of organisations developing new fields of innovation, networking through organisations to integrate new knowledge and technology, financing innovation processes and activities to commercialise knowledge, incubating activities for new innovative efforts, consultancy for innovation, interactive learning among organisations or government policies.
  
  

eg. Scottish RIS (by Scottish Government)*

       Since the 90s, European policy strategies -among other public authorities- have been using the RIS approach as a tool to describe, understand, explain and influence innovation processes. Due to the historically and contextually determined nature of the RIS, researchers and policy-makers are compelled to identify and operationalise for each region the concrete institutions, actors and interrelated activities present in a region. In this vein, the RIS approach attempts to provide with a comprehensive scheme of understanding allowing for rational and coordinated organisation of innovation drivers according to a collective goal.

      Nevertheless, this approach has been also criticised by some scholars. Fageberg pointed out that theorise a RIS seems highly relevant for policy-makers, but this also involves the risks of locking in a system of evolutionary nature, creating a structure that will facilitate certain patterns of interaction and outcomes constraining others, driving to a stable configuration that would hamper new fruitful exploration for the actors involved in innovation processes (2006). The extreme complexity and uncertainty involved in innovation processes has been also underlined as a reason for the impossibilty of establishing causal relations that will drive to innovation ( Cooke et al. 1997; Carlsson et al. 2002). Therefore, making innovation happen is impossible to plan.

       Yet there is little to argue to these sound criticisms, the RIS approach is still highly valuable instrument that can be used to effectively understand how innovation occurs, providing some reasonable guidance towards high-standard policies aiming at facilitating scenarios that will favour innovation.

Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmén, M., Rickne, A. (2002) “Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues” Elsevier. Research Policy 31, 233-245.

Cooke, P., Gómez Uranga, M., Etxebarria, G. (1997) “Regional Innovation Systems: Institutional and Organisational Dimensions” Elsevier. Research Policy 26, 475-491

Edquist, C. (2006) “Systems of Innovation: Perspectives and Challenges” in “The Oxford Handbook of Innovation”, Oxford University Press.

Metcalfe, S. (1995) “The economic foundations of technology policy. Equilibrium and evolutionary perspectives” in Stoneman, P. “Handbook of the Economic Innovation and Technology Change”. Blackwell Handbooks in Economics, Oxford.

Miettinen, R. (2002). “National Innovation System. Scientific concept or political rhetoric?” Edita, Helsinki. 

* www.scotland.gov.uk