• 과학기술학연구
• /
• 제10권2호
• /
• pp.1-35
• /
• 2010

탈(脫)추격형 혁신은 기술만이 아니라 그 기술이 개발.활용되는 시장과 제도를 함께 창출시켜야 한다는 점에서 새로운 접근을 필요로 한다. 본 연구는 탈추격형 혁신의 개념과 핵심 과제들을 살펴보고, 탈추격형 혁신을 효과적으로 전개하기 위해서는 혁신정책과 산업 인력 노동 지역 금융 사회 등 관련 정책간의 연계 통합을 지향하는 '통합적 혁신정책(integrated innovation policy)'이 필요함을 주장하였다. 탈추격형 혁신 상황에서는 기술혁신활동과 시장/제도의 창출활동이 동시에 수행되면서 기술만이 아니라 그것을 개발하고 활용하는 사회의 구성이 함께 이루어진다. 기술과 사회의 동시 구성을 효과적으로 수행하기 위해서는 혁신정책과 교육 산업 노동 지역 사회 등이 서로 보완성을 갖도록 단편적인 정책영역을 넘어 다른 부문 정책까지 고려하는 통합적 혁신정책이 요구된다. 탈추격형 혁신을 위한 통합적 혁신정책 구현을 위해서는 장기 비전 창출과 광범위한 정책 연계 통합을 이끌어내는 전환가적 정부 역할이 요구된다. 이와 함께 제도, 환경, 인프라 전반을 통해 행동의 변화를 유도하는 시스템 혁신이 중요해진다. 이를 달성하기 위한 예로 예산을 통해 관련정책의 통합성을 확보할 수 있는 부처 간 통합예산제도를 도입하여 각 부처가 공동으로 프로그램을 설계 집행하는 방안을 검토할 필요가 있다. 또한 탈추격 상황이 갖는 고도의 불확실성에 대응하기 위해서는 전면적인 정책실행 보다 다양한 시범 사업을 바탕으로 한 소규모의 정책 실험을 수행해 나가야 한다. 소규모 실험의 성공을 바탕으로 점차 실험의 크기를 확대해 나가면서 관련 지식을 축적하고 정책의 불확실성을 점차 줄여갈 수 있다.

• Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy
• /
• 제12권3호
• /
• pp.383-400
• /
• 2023

This research focuses on examining the mobilization of Public Procurement for Innovation (PPI) in South Korea as a case study in technology innovation. By using the lens of policy mobility and qualitative research methodologies, it emphasizes the circulation of PPI is an outcome of an assemblage of multiple actors who are responsible for the introduction of PPI. The Public Procurement Service in South Korea has actively sought to understand and adopt the concept of PPI from developed countries. This initiative has been localized under the umbrella of 'innovative technology and product.' Throughout the mobilization, a cadre of technocrats, the Innovation Procurement Competence Center plays a pivotal role, and particularly encourages Small and Medium Enterprises to bolster their export capabilities, resulting in a reciprocal circulation of policies and programs from South Korea to foreign countries as well as within intra-urban area. Consequently, the above findings, revealing the nuanced evolution of policy mobility in local contexts, hold practical significance as they provide valuable insights and lessons for urban studies.

• 기술혁신학회지
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.156-175
• /
• 2013

사회 기술시스템론은 사회와 기술은 서로 분리되어 존재할 수 없는 통합된 시스템으로 존재한다고 파악한다. 사회와 기술이 서로 보완성을 형성하면서 사회 기술시스템을 구성한다. 사회 기술시스템론은 혁신체제론이 진화한 논의로서 혁신의 사용 측면, 사회적 측면을 중요한 요소로 설정하고 있다. 혁신체제론의 경제중심적 측면을 보완하면서 사회적 측면까지 분석에 포괄하고 있는 것이다. 이 글에서는 사회 기술시스템론의 특성을 살펴보고 그것의 활용방안을 살펴본다. 특히 장기비전 형성, 연구개발사업 기획, 참여형 연구개발사업, 과학문화 사업에 사회 기술시스템론을 도입했을 때 나타나는 양상과 의의를 논의한다.

• 기술혁신학회지
• /
• 제11권3호
• /
• pp.352-375
• /
• 2008

최근 정책의 복잡성 불확실성 애매성이 높아지면서 정책 조정 및 통합 문제가 핵심 과제로 등장하고 있다. 특히 혁신과 환경 부문은 그 정책의 위상이 강화되고 영역이 확대되면서, 지속가능한 발전을 강조한 환경정책 통합(Environmental Policy Integration)과 제3세대 혁신 정책(the Third Generation Innovation Policy) 등이 환경정책과 혁신정책의 새로운 패러다임으로 등장하고 있다. 본 연구는 정책조정에 대한 새로운 접근으로 '정책 통합(policy integration)'을 제시하고, 이에 대한 등장 배경, 의의, 개념과 대상, 주요 쟁점을 살펴보았다. 보다 구체적으로 정책통합의 기대 효과와 어려움을 환경정책과 혁신정책의 통합을 중심으로 살펴보고, 정책 통합의 사례로 핀란드 혁신정책 통합을 살펴보았다. 이에 기반하여 기술혁신정책을 중심으로 정책 통합을 구현하기 위한 정책적 함의를 도출하였다. 정책 통합은 정책 수행주체의 다원화와 자율성을 전제로 하면서도, 개별 정책을 같은 방향으로 재배열하거나 전체 목표에 부합되도록 추동해 나가는 일련의 정책적 노력을 말한다. 각 부문 간 적극적인 상호작용을 통해 형성된 공유된 비전과 사회적 합의에 기반하여 장기적인 시각에서의 정책 조정(policy adjustment)과 적응(adaptation)을 강조하고 있다. 정책통합은 일반적으로 조직통합과 연계해서 생각하는 경우가 많으나 반드시 정책통합으로 이어지지 않는다. 정책 통합은 일사분란하게 정책들이 특정 방향으로 위계적으로 배열되는 것도 아니고, 정책들이 개별적으로 질서 없이 각개 약진하는 것도 아닌, 공통된 비전하에서 같은 방향으로 진화해 나간다는 점에서 계서제, 전체주의 개념과 차이가 있다. 정책통합론은 정책조정에 대한 새로운 인식을 제공하고 정책의 실효성을 제고하는 등 다양한 측면에서 의의가 있다.

• STI Policy Review
• /
• 제3권2호
• /
• pp.1-46
• /
• 2012

The paper assesses the innovative performance and challenges that a small innovative country like Sweden faces in an era of intense global competition. We contrast innovative performance with similar countries in Europe as well as discus the reliability and validity of indicators used to shape policy development. The conclusion from the analysis shows that available input-output indicators must be used with some caution. Even if the supply and quality of indicators has increased for policy analysis, they still lack precision and validity to make broad claims about the innovative performance of companies and nations. It is argued that understanding knowledge flows (rather than simple input-output metrics) are a key to understand innovation processes for small countries at the innovation frontier; subsequently, small countries will have to abandon failed policy orthodoxies in order to cope with future policy challenges.

• STI Policy Review
• /
• 제8권2호
• /
• pp.23-48
• /
• 2017

This article advocates for a Mode 3 science policy. Compared to the university research-based Mode 1 knowledge production system and the knowledge application-centric Mode 2 innovation system, Mode 3 can be defined as a system that integrates both Mode 1 and Mode 2-type knowledge production models. In this article, based on the major characteristics of the Mode 3 scientific knowledge production system, I agree with the advocates of Mode 3 that constructing a knowledge society requires an inclusive form of knowledge production and innovation system through the democratization of knowledge production as well as the promotion of social values. Moreover, the mechanisms for creating accountable innovation in the Mode 3 system should be given more attention from the science research and policy communities to make public policy for scientific and technological innovation more reflective of social changes. Similar to the ways that the Mode 1 and Mode 2 scientific knowledge production approaches have influenced the development of science policy models, the Mode 3 scientific knowledge production approach, or Mode 3 science, also has the potential to shape a new science policy model. I will refer to this as Mode 3 science policy. In an effort to conceptualize the democracy- and society-centric Mode 3 science policy model, I will articulate science policy strategies in four science policy domains in South Korea from the context of the Mode 3 science approach. These include (1) evaluation of publicly-funded research activities, (2) valorization of scientific knowledge (that is, enhancement of the value of scientific knowledge through governmental action), (3) development of a science policy decision-making support system, and (4) anticipatory foresight of science, technology and society. When adopting and implementing a Mode 3 science framework, one progressive change is to increase socially desirable innovation such as responsible innovation.

• 기술혁신연구
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.77-93
• /
• 2001

In this paper, we propose a novel framework for technology policy aimed both for the generation and diffusion of new technologies. Based upon critical examination of related theories and practice of technology policy, we identify two major problems in current technology generation policy, and the segregated approach to technology diffusion policy from technology generation policy. To remedy these problems, we argue that two goals of technology policy of generation and diffusion should be integrated and synchronized via unified policy framework, and propose the conceptual configuration for policy implementation which can serve the desired objective.

• 기술혁신학회지
• /
• 제6권2호
• /
• pp.159-174
• /
• 2003

This study reviews the emerging new model of science and technology decision making process. It examines the open source software development model and community-based innovation model in technological innovation and the active participation model of Consensus Conference and Citizen's Jury in science and technology policy decision making. It argues that the role and influence of users in innovation and policy making is becoming important in these emerging models and the existing supplier-led, bureaucratic model of science and technology decision making model is changing.

• STI Policy Review
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.62-86
• /
• 2017

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) system is one of the major institutions for incentivizing innovation. However, a strong IPR regime does not necessarily encourage innovation every time. This is because a variety of factors come into play in configuring the ways the IPR system interacts with the dynamics of innovation. In the present study, we examine whether different degrees of absorptive capacity at the industry level bring about heterogeneous effects of a strong IPR regime on the innovation capability of innovators across different industries in developing country. Using the case of the 1986 IPR reform in Korea, which permitted patenting pharmaceutical products and copyrighting computer programs, we analyze the quality of patents produced by Korean applicants between 1982 and 1991. Our analysis finds no evidence that the IPR reform improved the innovation capability of innovators in the two aforementioned sectors, but rather affected their patenting behavior differently.

• 아태비즈니스연구
• /
• 제14권4호
• /
• pp.191-204
• /
• 2023

Purpose - The purpose of this study was to analyse the relationship between R&D tax support policy and firm innovation activity using data on firms engaged in 12 national strategic technology sectors. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected survey data from 664 companies engaged in national strategic technologies. The data were then analysed using the Propensity Score Matching (PSM) analysis. Findings - First, corporate R&D tax support had a statistically significant positive (+) relationship with firm innovation performance. Second, there was a statistically significant positive (+) relationship with incremental innovation, but there was no statistical significance with radical innovation. Third, there was a statistically significant positive (+) relationship with the firm's first innovation, but there was no statistical significance with the world's first innovation. Fourth, there was a statistically significant positive (+) relationship with the number of R&D projects of a firm. Finally, there was a statistically significant positive (+) relationship with a firm's open innovation. Research implications or Originality - First, in terms of policy effectiveness, the government needs to consider promoting R&D tax support policies in areas where R&D competition is fierce. For private companies engaged in the 12 national strategic technology fields, the R&D tax support policy is working in the direction of promoting corporate innovation activities, and this positive policy effect is likely to be effective in areas where R&D competition is fierce. Second, if the government wants to improve the quality of corporate innovation activities through R&D tax support policies, it needs to provide incentives higher than the current level.