Panel -II

Chris Freeman centenary lecture Series

PANEL-2

07.04.2021; 2.00 PM to 5.10 PM GMT (London Time)

Sub theme-1: Freeman's thinking and its relevance for Global South 2.00 pm - 3.00 pm

Richard   Nelson,

Francisco   Louça,

Susan   Cozzens,

Giovanni Dosi.

Sub theme-2: Policy and Politics 3.00pm - 4.00 pm

Franco Malerba,

Laurens Klerkx,

Judith Francis,

Michiko   Iizuka.

BREAK: 10 minutes

Sub theme-3: New horizons for IS approach 4.10 pm - 5.10 pm

Charles Edquist,

Xiaolan Fu,

Smita Srinivas,

Edward Lorenz.

• Moderator: Professor      Edward Lorenz
• Opening      address: Professor Richard Nelson
• Closing remarks:      Professor Xiaolan Fu

Total 3 hours of discussion i.e. from 2.00 PM to 5.100 PM GMT (London).

A 5-10 minutes break after the second hour

Panellists may assemble 30 minutes prior to the session that is at 1.30 PM GMT, for preparations.

Each panellist gets 15 minutes. (10 minutes - for initial round of discussion & 5 minutes - for a quick revisit).

A few issues that maybe addressed under each sub-theme:

THEME-1: Freeman's thinking and its relevance for Global South

Richard Nelson | Francisco Louça | Susan Cozzens | Giovanni Dosi

· From the Long Waves studies by Freeman, Carlota and Soete and even in the NSI framework, it seems the concept of institutional setup is crucial to respond to unwanted effects of technical change such as capabilities disruptions, unemployment, un-equitative growth, negative environmental effects, etc. Institutions act as a mechanism to balance the internal “shocks” and manage unwanted externalities from innovation which can compromise social welfare. But, both theoretical approaches don't provide detailed explanations of the process of institutional change, just a general mention of a co-evolutionary process. What kind of insights is tentatively suggested to explain 3 main aspects of the process of institutional change: detonation conditions, institutional mobilization and effective institutional adoption, especially in the context of Global South?

· If the innovation system framework is footed in the old institutional economics it seems to be a heterodox one and if it is footed in the new institutional economics framework, to some extent it complements the neoclassical economics. Innovation system literature also supports arguments like ‘Institutions bridge asymmetric information’, ‘provide incentives’ and ‘promote cooperative behavior’ within the system, which is necessary for ‘interactive learning’. Hence, where do we stand? Whether old institutional economics or new institutional economics? Or can we incorporate both the arguments according to the question at hand?

· The use of paradigms (both technological and techno economic paradigms) is an elegant solution to explain convergent collective decision making in high incertitude environments, and it is also congruent to bounded rationality principles. But, how can we explain decision making prior to paradigm emergence? It is still a stage with high uncertainty and obviously there is no paradigm to follow. Some authors from STS studies suggest the use of socially constructed “visions” or “the construction of future scenarios by influential agents” could do that job and help to explain the pre-paradigmatic formation. Is there any other explanation from a SI perspective? Any agreement with these other theoretical approaches?

*****************

THEME-2: Policy and Politics

Franco Malerba | Laurens Klerkx | Judith Francis | Michiko Iizuka

· The intrinsic boundaries of NIS, SIS and RIS are relatively clear. However, with the emergence of enabling technologies like digital technologies /AI, how to consider the boundary of the sectoral system of innovation? For example, manufacturing sectors like automotives and household appliances become quite similar based on the discrete components' manufacturing under the support of the Industrial Internet Platform.

· In addition, how to regard the boundaries of potential emerging sectors like big-data/AI themselves, which play into enabling other traditional sectors like Agriculture, manufacturing?

· Techno-nationalism versus global knowledge sharing: How to combine openness of National Innovation Systems with building national capabilities and with international knowledge sharing? What is the role of accumulation and global concentration of IPR?

· With reference to the role of social capital for agricultural innovation adoption, it is claimed that social networks have a positive effect on the adoption process, as it can facilitate information diffusion. Moreover, it could be a way to share some resources like; labour, income, and farm equipment particularly in rural areas of developing countries. On the other hand social networks are the reason for homogeneity of ideas and knowledge, and thus they might not provide a suitable environment to generate different ideas and innovative knowledge. There may be similar ideas, knowledge and innovation among the social ties. How could these issues be reconciled, particularly in the case of developing countries?

· Considering the Territorial aspects of Sectoral agricultural innovation systems, how do the linkages work between the centers of innovative knowledge and technological development, and the diversity of agricultural businesses (from peasant families to local subsidiaries of global agribusiness VC) to apply innovative knowledge in territorial economic activities of growing, processing and commercialization?

*****************

THEME-3: New horizons for IS approach.

Charles Edquist | Xiaolan Fu | Smita Srinivas | Edward Lorenz

· One challenging question relates to inequality. While there is evidence that inequality between nation states is declining, there is also evidence that inequality within countries are increasing. While there are many measures used to measure the overall performance of the NSI, how would one measure and address inequality increases within countries from an innovation systems perspective?

· Financialization of the non-financial sector represents an important change to consider in IS research. More work needs to be done on the financialization regime of accumulation, in relation to Innovation Systems functioning and performance outcomes in relation to development. “The nature of the financial capital (Hilferding) has changed by the control of the global value chains by the largest financial/industrial corporations of the world.” Government efforts in the financial accumulation regime have been directed to subsidize the private investment in innovation by the dominant oligopolies. The most striking feature is the Big Pharma buying the start-ups that have been subsidized by the NIH (Brazila). Would it be possible for developing countries to have a public procurement policy as a mechanism that could stimulate innovation?

· "NIS research is stagnating and several other frameworks are emerging which are competing". Are policy makers are increasingly engaging with policy proposals related to Smart Specialization and Entrepreneurial Eco-system and as a result are we (innovation scholars) losing policymakers?

This document is prepared jointly by Dr. Andrew Robert Cummings and Dr. Veronica Roberts