Under the background of increasingly intensified international scientific and technological competition, how to improve the efficacy of national innovation system has been widely concerned by major countries. At present, system failure and transformation failure restrict the efficacy improvement of China′s national innovation system, and demand-oriented scientific and technological innovation governance provides a way to solve two types of failures and improve the efficacy of national innovation system. Based on the theoretical framework of demand-oriented scientific and technological innovation governance and national innovation system efficacy improvement, we summarize the international typical experience of demand-oriented scientific and technological innovation governance, analyze the demand-oriented scientific and technological innovation governance challenges faced by China′s national innovation system, and puts forward corresponding countermeasures.Firstly, we build a theoretical analysis framework for demand-oriented governance of scientific and technological innovation and the efficacy of national innovation system, and explain the mechanism and path for demand-oriented governance of scientific and technological innovation to improve the efficacy of national innovation system. We propose that the system failure caused by the imperfect structure and operation mechanism of national innovation system restricts the efficacy of national innovation system from the structural level, and the transformation failure may also restrict the continuous improvement of national innovation system′s efficacy from the directional level. Demand-oriented scientific and technological innovation governance helps to solve structural problems caused by system failure and directional problems caused by transformation failure in the national innovation system, thus promoting the efficacy of the national innovation system.Secondly, we analyze the layout and practice of science and technology governance guided by US strategic demand-driven and EU mission-driven. The United States has long implemented national strategic demand-oriented scientific and technological innovation governance. Taking DARPA for example, DARPA is the most typical demand-oriented scientific research organization model in the United States, and has established a demand-oriented scientific and technological innovation project governance system. The EU continues to promote mission-oriented science and technology innovation governance. For example, Horizon Europe promotes project-driven science and technology innovation governance under the guidance of mission, so that research and innovation can better serve national strategies and meet social challenges.Thirdly, we analyze the main challenges about demand-oriented scientific and technological innovation governance that restrict the efficacy improvement of China′s national innovation system, and put forward the ways of conducting demand-oriented scientific and technological innovation governance. Based on the demand-oriented innovation paradigm and governance of scientific and technological innovation, the systematic layout of innovation direction, scientific and technological resources and innovation policies will help solve problems such as decentralized allocation of innovation resources, inconsistent interests of innovation subjects, and difficult transformation of scientific and technological achievements, so as to improve efficient allocation of scientific and technological innovation resources, organic coordination of various subjects and coordinated and adaptive departmental policies.The main conclusions of this study are as follows. Demand-oriented science and technology governance helps to solve system failure and transformation failure restrict the efficacy of national innovation system. From the practical level, demand-oriented science and technology governance has been embedded in the organization and management of science and technology activities in the United States and the European Union. Main reasons restricting the efficacy of China′s national innovation system include that China′s demand-oriented science and technology resource allocation system and evaluation system are not perfect, demand-oriented industry-university-research cooperation mechanism and guarantee mechanism are not well organized, and the science and technology innovation policy system that meets the new needs of economic and social development is not mature. Therefore, China urgently needs to coordinate the construction of the capacity, efficiency and direction of national innovation system, establish and improve demand-oriented science and technology governance system so as to strengthen the efficacy of national innovation system.
Key words
national innovation system efficacy /
demand orientation /
scientific and technological innovation governance
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1]苏继成,李红娟.新发展格局下深化科技体制改革的思路与对策研究[J].宏观经济研究,2021(07):100-111.
[2]李瑞.新形势下科技创新治理复杂性及“元治理”体系构建[J].自然辩证法研究,2021,37(05):60-66.
[3]敦帅,陈强,贾婷,宫磊.新形势下科技创新治理体系现代化的理论体系构建研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2022,43(03):24-43.
[4]Furman J L, Porter M E, Stern S. The determinants of national innovative capacity[J]. Research Policy, 2002, 31(6): 899-933.
[5]Niosi J. National systems of innovations are “x-efficient”(and x-effective): Why some are slow learners[J]. Research Policy, 2002, 31(2): 291-302.
[6]Mahroum S, Al-Saleh Y. Towards a functional framework for measuring national innovation efficacy[J]. Technovation, 2013, 33(10-11): 320-332.
[7]张治河,冯陈澄,李斌,华瑛.科技投入对国家创新能力的提升机制研究[J].科研管理,2014,35(04):149-160.
[8]范红忠.有效需求规模假说、研发投入与国家自主创新能力[J].经济研究,2007(03):33-44.
[9]左志刚.金融结构与国家创新能力提升:影响机理与经验证据[J].财经研究,2012,38(06):48-58+79.
[10]孙玉涛，刘凤朝. 国家创新能力成长机理研究[M].北京：科学出版社，2011.
[11]张俊芳. 国家创新体系的效率及其影响因素研究[M]. 经济科学出版社, 2012.
[12]Afzal M N I. An empirical investigation of the National Innovation System (NIS) using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and the TOBIT model[J]. International Review of Applied Economics, 2014, 28(4): 507-523.
[13]Hu J L, Yang C H, Chen C P. R&D efficiency and the national innovation system: An international comparison using the distance function approach[J]. Bulletin of Economic Research, 2014, 66(1): 55-71.
[14]European Commission. Science and Society Action Plan[R]. Luxembourg, 2002.
[15]张来武.科技创新的宏观管理:从公共管理走向公共治理[J].中国软科学,2012(06):1-5.
[16]孙福全.加快实现从科技管理向创新治理转变[J].科学发展,2014(10):64-67.
[17]OECD. Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2012[R]. OECD Publising, 2012.
[18]樊春良.国家科技治理体系的理论构架与政策蕴含[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2022,43(03):3-23.
[19]陈套.从科技管理到创新治理的嬗变:内涵、模式和路径选择[J].西北工业大学学报(社会科学版),2015,35(03):1-6.
[20]张志娟,刘萍萍,王开阳,郄海拓.国外科技创新治理的典型政策工具运用实践及启示[J].科技导报,2020,38(05):26-35.
[21]郑江淮,章激扬,陈俊杰.发达国家创新治理体系的历史演变、新趋势及对我国的启示[J].国外社会科学,2020(05):112-124.
[22]Edler J, Georghiou L. Public procurement and innovation—Resurrecting the demand side[J]. Research Policy, 2007, 36(7): 949-963.
[23]张志强.坚持科技发展正确理念 实现科技自主自立自强[J].世界科技研究与发展,2021(01):1-7.
[24]Edler J. Local needs, global challenges: the meaning of demand-side policies for innovation and development[J]. The Global Innovation Index (GII), 2016: 97-102.
[25]Mazzucato M. From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy[J]. Industry and Innovation, 2016, 23(2): 140-156.
[26]Mazzucato M. Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2018, 27(5): 803-815.
[27]Freeman C. Technology, Policy, and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan[M]. London: Pinter Publishers,1987.
[28]Lundvall B ?. National Innovation Systems: Towards A Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning[M]. London: Pinter Publishers,1992.
[29]Nelson R R. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis[M]. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1993.
[30]Edquist C. Systems of innovation perspectives and challenges[J]. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 2010, 2(3): 14-45.
[31]Edquist C. Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations[M]. Routledge, 2013.
[32]European Commission. Science and Society Action Plan[R]. Luxembourg, 2002.
[33]Reyes-Mercado P, Angeles A, Larios-Hernández G J. Demand-oriented innovation policy: Mapping the field and proposing a research agenda for developing countries[J]. Journal ofEvolutionary Studies in Business, 2020, 5(1): 158-181.
[34]Bush V. Science, the endless frontier[M]. Princeton University Press, 2020.
[35]Mazzucato M. Mission-oriented research & innovation in the European Union[R]. European Commission, 2018.
[36]窦超,李晓轩,代涛.DARPA治理有效性研究[J].科学学研究,2019,37(08):1435-1441.
[37]路风,何鹏宇.举国体制与重大突破——以特殊机构执行和完成重大任务的历史经验及启示[J].管理世界,2021,37(07):1-18+1.
[38]贾珍珍,曾华锋,刘戟锋.美国颠覆性军事技术的预研模式、管理与文化——以美国国防高级研究计划局(DARPA)为例[J].自然辩证法研究,2016,32(01):41-45.
[39]智强,林梦柔.美国国防部DARPA创新项目管理方式研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2015,36(10):12-22.
[40]任志宽, 谈力. 美国防部高级研究项目局创新秘诀[N/OL] （2020-08-03）[2022-03-17]. 瞭望东方周刊. http://finance.sina.com.cn/wm/2020-08-03/doc-iivhvpwx9002089.shtml.
[41]李丹丹,苏鑫鑫.美国国防高级研究计划局（DARPA）组织管理运行机制分析 [EB/OL].（2016-04-03）[2022-03-17]. https://blog.csdn.net/lionzl/article/details/51051246.
[42]Mazzucato M. Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2018, 27(05): 803-815.
[43]European Commission. Horizon Europe:Strategic plan and work programmes[R]. 2021.
[44]The UCL Commission. A Mission-Oriented UK Industrial Strategy[R]. 2019.
[45]TNO, Missions and ‘new’ mission-oriented policy[EB/OL]. (2018-11-27) [2022-3-17]. https://www.tno.nl/en/focus-areas/strategic-analysis-policy/expertise-groups/strategy-policy/mission-oriented-research-and-innovation-policy/
[46]蔺洁,王婷,冯海红.任务导向型研究创新政策——“地平线欧洲”的新思路[J].全球科技经济瞭望,2020,35(02):8-15+55.
[47]European Innovation Council. EIC Funding opportunities[EB/OL]. (2018-11-27) [2022-3-17]. https://eic.ec.europa.eu/about-european-innovation-council_en
[48]European Commission. Seal of Excellence[EB/OL]. (2018-11-27) [2022-3-17]. https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/funding/funding-opportunities/seal-excellence_en
[49]European Commission. Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation[EB/OL]. (2018-11-27) [2022-3-17]. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018PC0435
[50]桑玉成,邓峰.论科技体制在国家治理体系中的地位与作用[J].上海行政学院学报,2020,21(05):13-21.
[51]刘钒,彭虎,易晓波等.新时代科技体制的结构性矛盾:逻辑、表征与改革路径[J].中国科技论坛,2019(06):24-28+39.
[52]齐让.科技资源配置的问题与建议[N].光明日报,2013-06-17.
[53]纪玉伟,陈媛媛,范红坤.中国与其他创新型国家基础研究经费投入政策对比研究[J].科技智囊,2021(03):61-69.
[54]朱浩.我国科技人才评价的问题与制度建设——以科技人才生态位为坐标[J].系统科学学报,2019,27(01):77-81.
[55]蔡跃洲.中国共产党领导的科技创新治理及其数字化转型——数据驱动的新型举国体制构建完善视角[J].管理世界,2021,37(08):30-46.
[56]薛澜,梁正.构建现代化中国科技创新体系[M].广东经济出版社,2021.
[57]梁正.从科技政策到科技与创新政策——创新驱动发展战略下的政策范式转型与思考[J].科学学研究,2017,35(02):170-176.
[58]蔺洁,陈凯华.构建需求导向和问题导向的新型国家科技创新治理体系[N].光明日报,2020-09-17.
[59]孙福全.关于科技资源配置重点方向的思考[J].科技中国,2020(08):41-43.
PDF(811 KB)
