Search

This paper analyses recent industrial policy plans made by five leading countries: China, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom and United States. This is done through the analysis of policy documents, using an original framework. Our analysis reveals that these policies have two main motivations. First, the acknowledgement of new technological opportunities and challenges, that allow not only for higher growth rates and competitiveness, but also for addressing ‘societal challenges’ (persistent socio-environmental problems). Second, the growing understanding that, because of the increasing complexity of innovation, private sector efforts alone are not enough, and a higher level of convergence between actors and institutions is needed. We also identify that the policy structures and proposed instruments of these strategies are quite conventional, which contrasts with the rhetoric of these policies. This reveals that the ‘resurgence’ of industrial policies is yet not a return to the ‘old’ policies of the twentieth century, but a new breed, which is much more cautious of interfering with market mechanisms.

This paper analyses recent industrial policy plans made by five leading countries: China, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom and United States. This is done through the analysis of policy documents, using an original framework. Our analysis reveals that these policies have two main motivations. First, the acknowledgement of new technological opportunities and challenges, that allow not only for higher growth rates and competitiveness, but also for addressing ‘societal challenges’ (persistent socio-environmental problems). Second, the growing understanding that, because of the increasing complexity of innovation, private sector efforts alone are not enough, and a higher level of convergence between actors and institutions is needed. We also identify that the policy structures and proposed instruments of these strategies are quite conventional, which contrasts with the rhetoric of these policies. This reveals that the ‘resurgence’ of industrial policies is yet not a return to the ‘old’ policies of the twentieth century, but a new breed, which is much more cautious of interfering with market mechanisms. Este trabajo analiza recientes planes de política industrial de cinco países líderes: China, Alemania, Japón, Reino Unidos y Estados Unidos. Esto se logró mediante el análisis de las políticas, utilizando un framework de análisis original. Nuestro análisis revela que estas políticas poséen dos motivaciones principales. Primero, el reconocimiento de nuevas oportunidades y desafíos tecnológicos, que permitan no solo una taza de crecimiento y competitividad mayor, sino que también aborden "desafíos sociales&quot (problemas socio-ambientales persistentes). Segundo, la creciente comprensión de que debido al aumento de la complejidad en innovación, los esfuerzos del sector privado por si solos, no son suficientes y es necesario un mayor nivel de convergencia entre actores e instituciones. También identificamos que la estructura de las políticas y las herramientas propuestas en estas estrategias son bastante convencionales, lo cual contrasta con la retórica de estas políticas. Esto revela que el ‘resurgimiento’ de políticas industriales no es un retorno a las políticas ‘antiguas’ del siglo veinte, sino que es un nuevo tipo, mucho más cuidadoso de no interferir con los mecanismos de mercado. Este artigo analisa recentes planos de política industrial de cinco países líderes: China, Alemanha, Japão, Reino Unido e Estados Unidos. Isso é feito através da análise de documentos de política, usando um framework de análise original. Nossa análise revela que essas políticas possuem duas principais motivações. Primeiro, o reconhecimento de novas oportunidades e desafios tecnológicos, que permitem não apenas taxas de crescimento e competitividade maiores, mas também a abordagem de ‘desafios sociais’ (problemas socio-ambientais persistentes). Segundo, o crescente entendimento que, devido à crescente complexidade da inovação, esforços do setor privado sozinhos não são o suficiente, e um maior nível de convergência entre diferentes atores e instituições é necessário. Também identificamos que as estruturas de política e instrumentos propostos por essas estratégias são bastante convencionais, o que contrasta com sua retórica. Isso revela que o ‘ressurgimento’ de políticas industriais não é um retorno às políticas ‘antigas’ do século vinte, mas um novo tipo, muito mais cauteloso em interferir em mecanismos de mercado.

This thesis contributes to closing a gap in the field of science, technology and innovation (STI) policy research: despite many theoretical advances in the field, we still do not know why some urgent societal issues (or ‘challenges’) remain unaddressed, notwithstanding the technological advances that could potentially address them. In particular, radical technological innovations – innovations that depart from the established technological trajectory – would offer greatest potential to address societal challenges. While the source of radical innovations is often new entrepreneurial firms, established firms (‘incumbents’) are likely to play an important role in developing them because of the vast resources and complementary assets they possess. Incumbents however, face few immediate incentives to develop radical innovations in response to societal\ud challenges.\ud \ud The analytical puzzle of this thesis is thus to explain how, when, and why industries change (or not) their strategies (in particular, their technological strategy) in order to address a societal problem. This puzzle is disentangled into interrelated research questions:\ud \ud A) How do societal issue­‐related pressures (on the incumbent industry) from different domains (namely, civil society, science, political arena, economy) evolve?\ud \ud B) How does the incumbent industry respond to changing pressures around societal issues, in terms of technological, political, cultural and economic strategies?\ud \ud C) In particular, when and why do industry actors decide to develop substantive technological responses?\ud \ud To answer these questions, the thesis develops a new analytical perspective that combines insights from (a) issue life­‐cycle and issue attention cycle theories (from the Business & Society field) with (b) the so­‐called ‘Triple Embeddedness Framework’ and (c) concepts from business strategies, innovation management, corporate political strategies, and technology policy. This novel perspective represents an ideal­‐typical model of issue evolution (‘issue life ­‐cycle’). The model, which I call the Dialectic Issue Life­‐Cycle (DILC) model, is applied to three case studies of the American automobile industry’s responses to various societal problems (local air pollution, auto and highway safety, and climate change). Combining qualitative and quantitative research methods in an original way, the case studies aim not only to investigate the validity of the framework, which also provides conceptual answers to the research questions, but also to further refine it and nuance the conceptual answers. By explaining how incumbent industry actors respond to societal challenges, this thesis ultimately contributes to the practical policy debate of how incumbents can be stimulated to develop radical innovations that help address societal challenges.