Managing diversity in a system of multi-level governance: the open method of co-ordination in innovation policy

Abstract

This article explains why open policy co-ordination has not yet gone very far in innovation policy. We claim that the multi-level character of innovation policies and the diversity of national innovation systems are major stumbling blocks to applying the OMC in this policy area. So far, these two peculiarities of innovation policies prevented ‘vertical policy co-ordination’ and ‘horizontal policy learning’, which have both been heralded as the main goals of applying the OMC. Acknowledging these features of innovation policies, this article argues that the OMC is only likely to constitute a valuable mode of governance if national and regional specificities are carefully taken into account, if actors at each territorial level are considered during the entire policy process, and if qualitative benchmark indicators are developed which consider the diversities of national innovation systems and regional idiosyncrasies. We explore our argument with respect to Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden.

Keywords:

• Austria
• European Union
• Germany
• innovation policy
• multi- level governance
• national systems of innovation
• the Netherlands
• OMC
• policy learning
• Sweden

Notes

A first draft of this paper was presented to the 2nd ECPR General Conference in Marburg, Germany, 18–21 September 2003. The authors would like to thank the participants of the section ‘The Nature and Form of the European Union’, especially Ulrich Klöti, for helpful suggestions. We are also indebted to Susana Borrás and Bent Greve for their useful comments on an earlier version.

The European Commission conducts benchmarking of national R&D policies on a regular basis. The major results are published in the ‘European Innovation Scoreboard’ which summarizes mostly quantitative performance data and the ‘European Trend Chart on Innovation’ which is more focused on qualitative issue- oriented assessments.

According to a database of the Brussels–Europe Liaison Office, there are about 170 regional offices in Brussels. Whereas all German and Austrian states are represented there, Dutch and Swedish regional authorities established eight and seven offices respectively (cf. the Brussels–Europe Liaison Office’s Website at http:// www.blbe.irisnet.be/blbecgi/multicriteresen.pl).

This survey does not include data from Austria. It can be assumed that the municipal region of Vienna would have made it under the top fifteen R&D intensive regions.

Which is not self-evident since even at the national level non-learning seems to be common (cf. Chalmers and Lodge 2003: 18).