Convergence of innovation policies in the European aerospace industry (1960-2000)

被引:16
作者
Landoni, Matteo [1 ]
Ogilvie, Dt [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cattolica Sacro Cuore, ICRIM Ctr Res, Dipartimento Sci Econ & Gest Aziendale, Via Necchi 5, I-20123 Milan, Italy
[2] Rochester Inst Technol, Saunders Coll Business, 107 Lomb Mem Dr, Rochester, NY 14623 USA
关键词
Policy mix; Innovation intermediaries; Innovation policy; Space industry; Aerospace industry; Privatization; Policy history; OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT; TECHNOLOGY FORESIGHT; PUBLIC PROCUREMENT; PATH DEPENDENCE; SYSTEMS; TELECOMMUNICATIONS; INTERMEDIATION; FRAMEWORK; KNOWLEDGE; STATE;
D O I
10.1016/j.techfore.2019.07.007
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
This paper contributes to an understanding of the evolution of the space industry and the role innovation policy and industrial change have played in that process. It looks at the impact of business-government interactions on the emerging space industry and how it evolved from the consolidation of aerospace businesses to the government creating national agencies to support the industry (through the use of innovation policy instruments) at the same time that privatization of the aerospace businesses occurred. We conducted a comparative case study of the aerospace industry in three European countries-France, Italy, and the United Kingdom (the U.K.)-that explores the governments' strategies to develop the emerging space industry. These strategies comprise a mix of innovation instruments, including the establishment of government agencies with the mission of supporting the space industry. The space agencies in each country had a common design that enabled the businesses to become global players in the industry. There is a link between the design of innovation policy mixes and the emerging model of European decentralized governance. This paper contributes to the literature by suggesting that government agencies are instruments of innovation policy for developing innovative industries.
引用
收藏
页码:174 / 184
页数:11
相关论文
共 138 条
[91]  
Lindenbaum S., 1998, POLITICAL EC AIDS, P33
[92]  
Lundvall B.A., 2007, Ind. Innovat., V14, P95, DOI [10.1080/13662710601130863, DOI 10.1080/13662710601130863]
[93]   Comparative-historical methodology [J].
Mahoney, J .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY, 2004, 30 :81-101
[94]   LEARNING FROM SAMPLES OF ONE OR FEWER [J].
March, James G. ;
Sproull, Lee S. ;
Tamuz, Michal .
ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, 1991, 2 (01) :1-13
[95]  
March JamesG., 2006, The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, P3
[96]   R&D policy instruments - a critical review of what we do and don't know [J].
Martin, Ben R. .
INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION, 2016, 23 (02) :157-176
[97]   FORESIGHT IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY [J].
MARTIN, BR .
TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT, 1995, 7 (02) :139-168
[98]  
Martin Stephen., 1997, INT J PUBLIC SECT MA, V10, P279
[99]   Incentives, coordination and learning in government-sponsored vs. spontaneous inter-firm research cooperation [J].
Matt, M ;
Wolff, S .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, 2004, 27 (08) :694-711
[100]   From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy [J].
Mazzucato, Mariana .
INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION, 2016, 23 (02) :140-156