Despite the key role of actor networks in progressing new sustainable technologies, there is a shortage of conceptual knowledge on how policy can help strengthen collaborative practices in such networks. The objective of this paper is to analyze the roles of such policies – so-called network management – throughout the entire technological development processes.
This article conceptualizes the diffusion of user innovations from a service ecosystem perspective. With the focus on sustainable innovations, the service ecosystem is evaluated, along with other systemic innovation concepts, as a possible theoretical basis for explaining the first adoption and diffusion of user innovations.
Rather than merely supporting R&D and strengthening innovation systems, the focus of innovation policy is currently shifting towards addressing societal challenges by transforming socio-economic systems. A particular trend within the emerging era of transformative innovation policy is the pursuit of challenge-based innovation missions, such as achieving a 50 % circular economy by 2030. By formulating clear and ambitious societal goals, policy makers are aiming to steer the directionality and adoption of innovation.
So far, numerous studies have exhibited Silicon Valley and other thriving innovation ecosystems by distinguishing special characteristics in which their survival rely on sustaining activities that convert them to specific regions. These regions provide ready-made grounds for networking to be innovative. Meantime, it is struggling for innovations to be transformed into measurable economic results if players encounter a weak network of collaborative relationships in the ecosystem.
Agricultural research and extension systems are central to unlock the potential of agricultural innovation and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Public agricultural research, extension and advisory services are essential for increasing productivity and promoting sustainable agricultural growth and alleviating poverty.
Grand societal challenges, such as global warming, can only be adequately dealt with through wide-ranging changes in technology, production and consumption, and ways of life, that is, through innovation. Furthermore, change will involve a variety of sectors or parts of the economy and society, and these change processes must be sufficiently consistent in order to achieve the desired results. This poses huge challenges for policy-making. This paper focus on implications for the governance of innovation policy, i.e., policies influencing a country’s innovation performance.
Today, technological global agri-food economies dominated by vertically integrated large enterprises are failing in meeting the challenge of feeding a growing global population within the limits of the “Planetary Boundaries”, and are characterised by a “triple fracture” between agri-food economies and their three constitutive elements: nature, consumers, and producers. In parallel to this crisis, new eco-ethical-driven agri-food economies are built around new farming and food distribution practices to face the challenge of food system transition to sustainability.
Social farming (SF) has emerged as a social innovation practice shaping heterogeneous approaches and results. This study discusses the complexity of SF policy and practices, and it is led by the main hypothesis that the relationship between agricultural and social dimensions might be very heterogeneous, not only in different national contexts but also within the same national and local level. SF policy and practices are investigated testing the hypothesis of three main different modalities of interaction according to how the social and the agricultural perspectives interact.
This practitioner’s guide, a companion volume to The Innovation Paradox picks up where the previous report left off. It aims to help policy makers in developing countries better formulate innovation policies. It does so by providing a rigorous typology of innovation policy instruments, including evidence of impact—and more importantly, the critical conditions in terms of institutional capabilities to successfully implement these policy instruments in developing countries.
The quest for innovation lies at the heart of European rural development policy and is integral to the Europe 2020 strategy. While social innovation has become a cornerstone of increased competitiveness and the rural situation legitimizes public intervention to encourage innovation, the challenges of its effective evaluation are compounded by the higher ‘failure’ rate implied by many traditional performance measures.