Setting Priorities for Innovation Policy and Evaluating Their Performance: Evidence from Europe and Lessons for Ukraine

Abstract

Setting priorities for supporting prospective technologies and activities is a key issue for science, technology and innovation (STI) policy. The general principles of priority-setting practices vary significantly across countries in terms of process and outcome due to different national cultures, historical prerequisites and rigidities of institutional settings. Often there is a perceived gap between stated policy goals and actual implementation of policy measures. A gap is typical for many developing countries, including Ukraine, in particular,. Ukraine has an established system of laws for STI as well as a solid methodological base for priority setting. Policy aims, however, are not supported by relevant implementation mechanisms, including programmes and framework conditions as well as monitoring and evaluation procedures.

The paper analyses evidences from several leading European countries and provides recommendations on how to achieve higher performance of priority setting and thus overall innovation policy. The author concludes that relying on a too narrow definition of thematic priorities may lead to dead-ends. In contrast too broadly ranging priorities do not direct the innovation policy sufficiently. An optimal balance could be achieved if only the government concentrates more on setting general goals and targets as well as ensures necessary framework conditions and infrastructure for innovation, allowing the bottom-up market forces to select thematic priorities. Besides the setting of priorities and their implementation should be delegated to committed organizations and agencies that possess all the relevant resources and competences. This ensures both vertical and horizontal policy co-ordination as well as wider stakeholder involvement into the preparation and implementation of a national innovation strategy.