This document provides a critical survey of inclusive regional innovation policy. It discusses several problems with current approaches: 1) concepts of "inclusive innovation" can be fuzzy and mean different things, 2) there is a tendency towards technological solutionism that does not address complex social problems, 3) innovation occurs at a global scale but impacts are local, and 4) cities and regions have limited powers to shape their economies compared to large forces like technological change. The document argues for more clearly defined concepts, learning from past failures, focusing on diffusion of innovation to disadvantaged groups, and using a mix of new and old policies tailored to local contexts to truly achieve inclusive innovation and growth.
Make a difference in a girl's life by donating to her education!
Inclusive Regional Innovation Policy - A critical survey
1. Inclusive regional innovation policy
A critical survey
Neil Lee
Department of Geography and Environment
London School of Economics
n.d.lee@lse.ac.uk
@ndrlee
6. Innovation leads to inequality between places
Cheshire - per capita R&D spending of Denmark,
almost as rich as Sweden
West Wales and the Valleys - per capita R&D
spending of Greece, almost as rich as Malta
7.
8.
9. The literature on innovation and inequality
• Innovation → job creation in cities and regions (measured as tech
growth, R&D or patenting: Moretti, 2011; Florida, 2014; Lee and
Rodriguez-Pose, 2015; Ciarli et al., 2018; Lee and Clarke, 2019; Kemeny
and Osman, 2019)
• But it also → inequality, with jobs often in low paid non tradeables and
higher living costs (Lee and Rodríguez-Pose, 2013; Breau et al. 2014)
• Innovative activities often exclude disadvantaged groups and places
• Costs > benefits for many people, often the least advantaged
10. The Inclusive Innovation Agenda
• Governments invest significant sums on innovation - Yet innovation is
inherently disruptive - creating winners and losers
• The social impact of innovation now forms part of most national
innovation strategies (Stanley et al., 2019)
• But the idea of Inclusive Innovation is rapidly becoming a new buzzword
in local economic development
• This presentation presents a critical survey of policy in this area
13. Relevant literatures
• Inclusive growth - Synergies between growth and inclusion policy (Lupton and
Hughes, 2018; Lee, 2019; Green et al., 2019)
• Management studies - George et al.’s (2019) Handbook
• Innovation studies - Distribution sensitive innovation policies (Zehavi & Breznitz,
2017)
• Development studies - Inclusive Innovation in the global south (Heeks et al., 2014)
Similar ‘buzzwords’ - “Base of the Pyramid innovation”, “below-the-radar
innovation”, “grassroots innovation”, “innovation for inclusive growth” - and
Responsible Research and Innovation (Fitjar et al, 2019)
14.
15. What is inclusive innovation?
George et al. (2012) “Innovation that benefits the disenfranchised”
OECD (2015) “Inclusive innovation projects are initiatives that directly serve the
welfare of lower-income and excluded groups”
NESTA (2019) “Inclusive innovation policies are directed towards ensuring that the
benefits and the risks of innovation are more equally shared. These policies will
actively consider whose needs are met by innovation and how excluded social
groups could be better served, focus on initiatives that promote broad participation
in innovation, and take a democratic and participatory approach to priority-setting
and the governance of innovation.”
22. Pittsburgh’s agenda
• Address the digital divide
• Empower city to citizen engagement
• Provide open data to Pittsburgh
• Improve internal operations and capacity of the city
• Advance the clean tech sector
• Promote the local business environment
23. Pittsburgh’s agenda
• Address the digital divide 👍
• Empower city to citizen engagement 👍
• Provide open data to Pittsburgh - sensible but is it inclusive?🤷
• Improve internal operations and capacity of the city 🤷
• Advance the clean tech sector 👍
• Promote the local business environment (Including: “Branding Pittsburgh an
Inclusive Innovation city”🤔
26. “fuzzy concepts”
"researchers may believe they are
addressing the same phenomena but may
actually be targeting quite different ones”
Markusen (1999: 702)
27. What do we mean by ‘inclusive innovation’?
1. Inclusive innovations - e.g. Tata Nano
2. Inclusivity in who innovates - Address lack of diversity in tech
3. Inclusive decision making for innovation - Involve the disadvantaged in strategy
4. Innovation in Inclusive Sectors - Move from high-tech to foundational industries
5. Innovation for Inclusive Growth - Fund lagging regions → ‘trickle-down’
6. Innovation in inclusion - Public service innovation for deprived groups
7. Inclusive innovation responses- Deal with the consequences of innovation
28. What do we mean by ‘inclusive innovation’?
1. Inclusive innovations - e.g. Tata Nano
2. Inclusivity in who innovates - Address lack of diversity in tech
3. Inclusive decision making for innovation - Involve the disadvantaged in strategy
4. Innovation in Inclusive Sectors - Move from high-tech to foundational industries
5. Innovation for Inclusive Growth - Fund lagging regions → ‘trickle-down’
6. Innovation in inclusion - Public service innovation for deprived groups
7. Inclusive innovation responses- Deal with the consequences of innovation
29. What do we mean by ‘inclusive innovation’?
1. Inclusive innovations - e.g. Tata Nano
2. Inclusivity in who innovates - Address lack of diversity in tech
3. Inclusive decision making for innovation - Involve the disadvantaged in strategy
4. Innovation in Inclusive Sectors - Move from high-tech to foundational industries
5. Innovation for Inclusive Growth - Fund lagging regions → ‘trickle-down’
6. Innovation in inclusion - Public service innovation for deprived groups
7. Inclusive innovation responses- Deal with the consequences of innovation
30. What do we mean by ‘inclusive innovation’?
1. Inclusive innovations - e.g. Tata Nano
2. Inclusivity in who innovates - Address lack of diversity in tech
3. Inclusive decision making for innovation - Involve the disadvantaged in strategy
4. Innovation in inclusive sectors - Move from high-tech to foundational industries
5. Innovation for Inclusive Growth - Fund lagging regions → ‘trickle-down’
6. Innovation in inclusion - Public service innovation for deprived groups
7. Inclusive innovation responses- Deal with the consequences of innovation
31. What do we mean by ‘inclusive innovation’?
1. Inclusive innovations - e.g. Tata Nano
2. Inclusivity in who innovates - Address lack of diversity in tech
3. Inclusive decision making for innovation - Involve the disadvantaged in strategy
4. Innovation in inclusive sectors - Move from high-tech to foundational industries
5. Innovation for inclusive growth - Fund lagging regions → ‘trickle-down’
6. Innovation in inclusion - Public service innovation for deprived groups
7. Inclusive innovation responses- Deal with the consequences of innovation
32. What do we mean by ‘inclusive innovation’?
1. Inclusive innovations - e.g. Tata Nano
2. Inclusivity in who innovates - Address lack of diversity in tech
3. Inclusive decision making for innovation - Involve the disadvantaged in strategy
4. Innovation in inclusive sectors - Move from high-tech to foundational industries
5. Innovation for inclusive growth - Fund lagging regions → ‘trickle-down’
6. Innovation in inclusion - Public service innovation for deprived groups
7. Inclusive innovation responses- Deal with the consequences of innovation
33. What do we mean by ‘inclusive innovation’?
1. Inclusive innovations - e.g. Tata Nano
2. Inclusivity in who innovates - Address lack of diversity in tech
3. Inclusive decision making for innovation - Involve the disadvantaged in strategy
4. Innovation in inclusive sectors - Move from high-tech to foundational industries
5. Innovation for inclusive growth - Fund lagging regions → ‘trickle-down’
6. Innovation in inclusion - Public service innovation for deprived groups
7. Inclusive innovation responses- Deal with the consequences of innovation
34. Does fuzziness matter?
• Not if it allows different users to cohere around a shared goal - avoiding
political difficulties
• But fuzzy concepts have often been dropped
• And fuzziness stops effective policy development
35. Problem 2: Solutionism
• Technology provides ‘easy solution’ to complex social problems
• Solutionism of new technology (Morozov, 2013)
• Humanitarian Neophilia (Scott-Smith, 2015)
• We can learn from failures in the development process: Expensive
technology cannot be used by disadvantaged groups (e.g. 3D printers in
Brazil, Woodson et al. 2019)
36. Problem 3: Scale
• Innovation is global, but the impact is local
• Transformative new technologies are highly unlikely to be produced in
disadvantaged areas - but the benefits will be felt there
• Instead need →
1.Focus on diffusion of innovation to disadvantaged groups
2.Consideration of the consequences of innovation
37. Problem 4: Powers
Cities and regions rarely have the
powers to fully shape their economies
Instead, big forces matter - the China
shock and technological change
Politicians promise unicorns, but
deliver donkeys
38. The case for Inclusive Innovation
• The problems faced by West Wales or Oxford are very different, so the
response must be as well
• Where this involves trade-offs we should accept it (we should value
growth more in Wales than Oxford)
• And some forms of Inclusive Innovation (e.g. diversity in STEM) are both
ethically clear and will have a positive, significant impact on the
economy - Finding Lost Einsteins
39. Inclusive Innovation
Example policies
The strategic choices
about innovation
Ensuring disadvantaged
groups are represented in
decision making
R&D in foundational
industries
R&D investments in
lagging regions
Inclusive production of
innovation
Gender equality in STEM
Equal access to
entrepreneurship
Better digital in schools
“Downstream” activities
of innovation
Innovation diffusion
Dealing with
consequences
Considering second order
effects
40. Conclusions
• The ‘dark side’ of innovation should be central to any modern regional
innovation policy
• But we need to be careful: policy agendas which work for nations do not
align with sub-national powers, policy frameworks are nascent, and
there is a long history of solutionism and neophilia
• “Inclusive innovation” can only go so far - inclusion will require old policy
as well
