مطالعه تطبیقی وضعیت حکمرانی علم، فناوری و نوآوری در ایران و کشورهای منتخب

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیات علمی گروه سیاست فناوری و نوآوری، مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور

2 عضو هیات علمی گروه تامین مالی و اقتصاد علم، فناوری و نوآوری، مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور

چکیده

توسعه علم، فناوری و نوآوری از دغدغه‌های اصلی هر کشوری از جمله جمهوری اسلامی ایران است. همچنین یکی از رویکردهای نوین در توسعه، الگوی حکمرانی است. در این تئوری تغییر پارادایم نقش دولت و حکومت‌ها بیان و زمینه را برای مشارکت یکسان و برابر جامعه مدنی، بخش خصوصی و دولت در فرایند تصمیم‌گیری فراهم می‌آورد. در این راستا بهره‌گیری از تجربیات سایر کشورها، البته با لحاظ نمودن شرایط زمینه‌ای، می‌تواند در این امر تاثیرگذار باشد. هدف این مقاله معرفی و بررسی ساختار کلان نظام علم، فناوری و نوآوری و نحوه تعامل و همکاری با یکدیگر و به عبارتی حکمرانی نظام علم، فناوری و نوآوری است. این پژوهش به لحاظ هدف به صورت توصیفی و با روش مطالعه تطبیقی و مبتنی بر تحلیل و مطالعه اسناد و منابع (مطالعات کتابخانه‌ای) انجام شده است. سه کشور پرتغال، نروژ و ژاپن از منظر سه شاخص تفکیک نهادی، ساز و کار هماهنگی و نحوه تامین مالی مورد بررسی تطبیقی با ایران قرار گرفتند، در پایان نیز با توجه به نتایج تحقیق پیشنهادهایی جهت تدوین الگوی حکمرانی نظام علم، فناوری و نوآوری ایران ارایه شده است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A comparative study of the governance of science, technology and innovation in Iran and selected countries

نویسندگان [English]

  • sahar kosari 1
  • parisa alizadeh 2
1 Faculty Member of Technology and Innovation Policy Department, National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP)
2 Faculty Member of Science, Technology and Innovation Financing and Economics, National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP)
چکیده [English]

The development of sciences, technology and innovation is one of the main concerns of any country, such as Islamic Republic of Iran. One of the new approaches in development is the governance model. In this theory, changing the paradigm of the role of government and government provides the basis for equal participation of civil society, private sector and government in the decision-making process. In this regard, using the experiences of other countries, can be effective (by considering the underlying conditions).The purpose of this article is to introduce and study the macro-structure of the system of science, technology and innovation and how to interact and cooperate with each other. In other words, the purpose of this article is the governance of the science, technology and innovation system. This research is descriptive study and based on analysis and study of documents and resources (library studies). The three countries of Portugal, Norway and Japan were compared with Iran in terms of three indicators of institutional separation, coordination mechanism and financing. Finally, according to the results of the article, it was suggested in the short term, following the governance model of Portugal and for minimizing overlaps, the distinction between thematic areas should be considered; in the long term, according to the Norwegian governance model, the solution is to strengthen the Ministry of Science and the high concentration of government budgets in it. And also, for strengthening the Supreme Council of Science, Research, and Technology (SCSRT) under the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (MSRT) that has active role in allocating and directing research and technology budget is maintained. According to the model of governance in Japan, a close relationship should be established between the MSRT with Iran National Innovation Fund (INIF).
ا

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Governance
  • Science
  • Technology and Innovation System
  • Comparative study
  • Howlett, M., Ramesh, M. and Perl, A. Studying public policy: policy cycles & policy subsystems. Oxford University Press. 2009.
  • UNCTAD, Science, technology and innovation policy review: The Islamic Republic of Iran, NewYork and Geneva: United Nations Publications. 2016.
  • Bevir, M. Key Concepts in Governance. Sage Publishing. 2008
  • Lynn, C. J., Heinrich, L. E. & Hill, C. J. Studying governance and public management: Challenges and prospects. 2000
  • Klasa, K., Trump, B. D., Linkov, I., & Lambert, J. H. Identifying new partnerships for innovation: Governance and policy challenges. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 2020; 48 (2): 26-38.
  • Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The New Governance: Governing without Government, Polit. Stud., 1996; no. December 2006: 652-667
  • Binz, C., & Truffer, B. The governance of global innovation systems: Putting knowledge in context. In Knowledge for governance, Springer, Cham. 2020; 397-414
  • Laranja, M. Network governance of innovation policies: The Technological Plan in Portugal, Sci. Public Policy, 2012; 39(5): 655-668.
  • Cashore, B., Knudsen, J. S., Moon, J., & van der Ven, H. Private authority and public policy interactions in global context: Governance spheres for problem solving. Regulation & Governance. 2021.
  • Fagerberg, J., & Hutschenreiter, G. Coping with societal challenges: Lessons for innovation policy governance. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 2020; 20: 279-305.
  • Kuhlmann S. and Rip, A. The challenge of addressing Grand Challenges A think piece on how innovation can be driven towards the & quot;Grand Challenges & quot; as defined under the prospective European Union Framework Programme Horizon 2020. 2014.
  • Liu, Z., Ma, L., Huang, T., & Tang, H. Collaborative Governance for Responsible Innovation in the Context of Sharing Economy: Studies on the Shared Bicycle Sector in China. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 2020; 6 (2): 35.
  • Chaminade, C., & Edquist, C. From theory to practice: the use of the systems of innovation approach in innovation policy. Innovation, Science, and Institutional Change A Research Handbook, 2006: 141-163.
  • Mikwamba, K., Dessein, J., Kambewa, D., Messely, L., & Strong, R. Collaborative governance dynamics in innovation platforms: case of Malawi’s District Stakeholder Panel. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 2020: 1-21.
  • Arnold, E. and Boekholt, P. The Governance of Research and Innovation An international comparative study. 2002.
  • Cunningham, P. and Karakasidou, A. A better understanding of the governance of innovation policy. ProInno Eur. Policy Br. 2009.
  • Edler, J. and Kuhlmann, S. New Governance for Innovation, Gov. an Int. J. Policy Adm., 2003; 2.
  • Pelkonen, A. The problem of integrated innovation policy_ Analyzing the governing role of the Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland, Science and Public Policy, 2006; 33 (9): 669-680.
  • Borras, B. The Widening and Deepening of Innovation Policy: What Conditions Provide for Effective Governance? Eur. Am. Conf. Sci. Innov. Policy, 2008: 1-23.
  • Rickne, A., Læstadius, S. and Etzkowitz, H. Innovation Governance in an Open Economy: Shaping Regional Nodes in a Globalized World, 2012: 308.
  • Edler, J., Fagerberg, J. Innovation policy: what, why, and how, Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 2017; 33 (1): 2-23, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grx001.
  • Haji-Hosseini, H. mohammadi, M. Abbasi, F. Elyasi, M. Analysis of Iranian Innovation System's Governance Based on Innovation Policy Making Cycle, Spring 2011; 4 (1): 33-48 [InPersian].
  • Alizadeh, P., Kheradmandnia, S. Governance of Iranian National Innovation System (1): Comparison of goals, tasks and programs of the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (MSRT) and Vice President for Science and Technology (VPST). Islamic Parliament Research Center (IPRC), [InPersian]. 1391.
  • Godarzi, M. rezaalizadeh, H. Gharibi, Jalil. Mohseni, M. Pathology of Science and Technology Policies of Iran: An Analysis of the five-year development plans [InPersian], Autumn 2014; 2 (3): 137-161.
  • Rajaee, A. The Study of the Governance of the Education Sector in Terms of Its Communication System in Different Countries of the World [InPersian], Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 1396; 07 (4): 25-34
  • Howlett, M., and Cashore, B. Conceptualizing Public Policy, in Comparative Policy Studies, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2014: 17-33.
  • Jenkins, W. I. Policy analysis : a political and organizational perspective. M. Robertson. 1978.
  • Ragin, Charles C. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative. 1987.
  • Cacace, M., Ettelt, S., Mays, N., & Nolte, E. Assessing quality in cross-country comparisons of health systems and policies: Towards a set of generic quality criteria. Health Policy, 2013; 112 (1-2): 156-162.
  • Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. Research methods for business students. Pearson education. 2009.
  • OECD Review of Higher Education, Research and Innovation: Portugal. 2019.
  • OECD, Norway 2017 Review. 2017.
  • Cooke, P. (2016). Nordic innovation models: Why is Norway different? Nor. Geogr. Tidsskr. vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 190–201, doi: 10.1080/00291951.2016.1167120.
  • RIO Country Report (2015). Norway | EU Science Hub. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/ publication/rio-country-report-2015-norway (accessed Dec. 12, 2020.
  • Khoei, S.m. Futures Research in Japan. Islamic Parliament Research Center (IPRC), [In Persian]. 1395
  • Kang, D., Jang W., Kim, Y. and Jeon, J. (2019). Comparing National Innovation System among the USA, Japan, and Finland to Improve Korean Deliberation Organization for National Science and Technology Policy, J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex., vol. 5, no. 4, p. 82, doi: 10.3390/joitmc5040082.
  • Anonymous, (2020), Policy Making Actors and Organizational Structure in Determining Science Technology and Innovation Policies in Selected Countries.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331530681_Policy_Making_Actors_and_Organizational_Structure_in_Determining_Science_Technology_and_Innovation_Policies_in_Selected_Countries (accessed Dec. 11, 2020).
  • Bell, J., Dodgson, M. and et al, for Economic and Social Benefit: Country Comparisons.