Jie PR1 0005

BEYOND THE COMPETITIVENESS FRAMEWORK?
MODELS OF
INNOVATION REVISITED
Pierre-Benoît Joly
De Boeck Supérieur | « Journal of Innovation Economics & Management »
2017/1 n° 22 | pages 79 à 96
ISBN 9782807391116
Article disponible en ligne à l'adresse :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2017-1-page-79.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour De Boeck Supérieur.

© De Boeck Supérieur. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays.
© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 25/01/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 185.186.81.198)

La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les
limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la
licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie,
sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de
l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage
dans une base de données est également interdit.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

BEYOND
THE COMPETITIVENESS
FRAMEWORK? MODELS
OF INNOVATION REVISITED
Pierre-Benoit JOLY
LISIS, CNRS, ESIEE Paris, INRA, UPEM,
Université Paris Est, 77454, France
joly@inra-ifris.org
ABSTRACT
In this paper we take up the call to consider research and innovation to address major con-
temporary societal challenges, and the need to design innovation policies that go beyond
the traditional competitiveness model. We conduct a broad review of the literature to ana-
lyse the diversity of innovation models. Although the linear model of innovation remains
dominant, we identify three alternative models: users’ innovation, distributed innovation,

and social innovation. We show that the models of innovation are related to different
moral economies, and we discuss their ability to deal with the directionality of innovation.
We also show that the current ‘democratisation of innovation’ (strongly related to these
alternative models) does not necessarily allow societal challenges to be addressed. This
analysis leads us to point out two issues. First, the need to make more space for alterna-
tive models, and second the need to better understand processes of generalisation through
which local innovation acquires the capacity to reach wider users.
Keywords: Models of Innovation, Innovation Policies, Social Innovation, ANT, Societal
Challenges
JEL Codes: O31
Although a focus on innovation is not new, the way it currently brings

together political discourse and the initiatives of many actors is novel. The
European Commission is an emblematic example of such policy discourse.
Since 2010, innovation has been seen as ‘the’ solution to major societal
challenges (climate change, depletion of fossil fuel resources, aging societies,
etc.) and is expected to boost competitiveness, maintain employment and
protect our social models. Meanwhile, many actors engage with this notion,
with business and management studies at the forefront. In this literature,
n° 22 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2017/1 79

Pierre-Benoit JOLY
‘open innovation’ is the new buzzword; however, the phenomenon is much

broader and results in an unprecedented lexical enrichment. Innovation is
responsible, social, distributed; it is also referred to as “grassroots innova-
tion”, “Jugaad innovation”, “reverse innovation”, etc.
Because of this conjunction between a political momentum and the pro-
liferation of words and practices, we are in an interesting period for innova-
tion studies. It has been suggested that the re-invention of innovation is
occurring in various ways (Joly, et al., 2010), that we need to pay attention
to the directionality of innovation (New Manifesto1), and rethink or trans-
form innovation policy (Edler, Nowotny, 2015; Schot 2014). The reasons
for this renewed focus on innovation are threefold. First, some prominent
scholars warn that, contrary to mainstream belief, the creative part of inno-
vation does not necessarily outweigh its destructive aspects (Soete, 2013);
in other words, policy must govern and steer innovation as well as promot-
ing it. Second, the increase in inequality is challenging the idea of trickle-
down innovation – the idea that what the rich enjoy today will benefit the
poor tomorrow (Bozeman, Sarewitz, 2011). Third, in many areas crucial for
contemporary societies (agriculture and food, energy, transportation, urban
infrastructures, use of chemicals, etc.), we face huge problems and there is
a need for transformative changes or deep system-level transitions (Scrase
et al., 2009, Grin et al., 2010).
Contributing to this research stream, this paper discusses the two key

dimensions related to the reinvention of innovation: the issue of democra-
tising innovation and the issue of directionality. These two dimensions are
seldom discussed together and we argue that, although both dimensions are
crucial, they are not necessarily aligned. While reflecting on this changing
research agenda in the innovation studies field we have to be careful not to
be dazzled by the mirage of novelty. Although the changes observed cannot
be taken to be marginal, the incumbent system of research and innovation
is highly sticky.
“Models of innovation” is one of the key concepts of this paper. Models of
innovation are conceptual frameworks which provide a stylised representa-
tion of the way innovation is generated. They both describe the reality ‘out
there’ and act as lenses to view and interpret this reality, and when they are
widely shared they play a performative role (Joly et al., 2010). They guide
how we collectively see and order the world in its histories and in its futures
and in this respect they constitute a central part of what Sheila Jasanoff has
called socio-technical imaginaries (Jasanoff, Kim, 2015). Models of innova-
tion include not only economic impact and competitiveness but also the
1. http://steps-centre.org/anewmanifesto/manifesto_2010/
80 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2017/1 – n° 22

Beyond the Competitiveness Framework? Models of Innovation Revisited
distribution of power and agency, collective learning, social relations, etc.

They are value-laden and they embed a dimension of social order; hence,
they are also models of society. Finally, models of innovation involve not
only discourses but also institutional devices, organisations, routines. The
policies formulated follow these innovation models, although often uncon-
sciously. It is therefore relevant to draw on the notion of moral economy to
characterise models of innovation.
The first section of this paper focuses on the dominant imaginaries of
innovation. Although we observe a proliferation of innovation processes
and meanings, innovation policies are conceived within the frame of com-
petitiveness, and draw on linear models of innovation. In this section, we
examine the stickiness of this traditional imaginary.
The second section of the paper adopts a different perspective and a focus
on ongoing explorations of different ways to innovate. We identify three
alternative models (user-centred, distributed, social) associated with more
collective forms of participation and with the ambition to democratise inno-
vation.
In the third and final section of the paper, we introduce the issue of the
directionality of innovation. The need to steer innovation toward given
objectives is rising up the policy agenda – cf. current discourses on societal
challenges. We suggest that none of the models identified is adapted to prop-

erly address the current societal challenges. We provide some suggestions for
future research.
THE DOMINANT IMAGINARY

OF INNOVATION – THE LINEAR MODEL
AND THE COMPETITIVENESS FRAME
The so-called linear model postulates that innovation starts with basic
research, is followed by applied research and development, and finally pro-
duction and diffusion. It defines the roles of various actors including division
of labour, and offers a diagnosis of what is happening and what should be
improved. The origin of this model may be attributed to Joseph Schumpeter
and to Vannevar Bush (Godin, 2015). Schumpeter made a clear distinction
between invention and innovation, two processes that correspond to dif-
ferent motivations, competences and norms. Entrepreneurs are innovators;
they have the ability to bring radical changes by designing new products,
implementing new processes of production or new organisations. They are
motivated by the potential economic benefits that are conditioned by the

Pierre-Benoit JOLY
temporary monopoly associated with their advance in the diffusion of inno-

vation. Innovation is a process of creative destruction, the replacement of
existing objects and processes by new ones. As it is the engine of economic
development, the overall balance of innovation is supposed to always be
positive. Bush’s report Science: the Endless Frontier (1945) is also considered
as a pillar of the linear model. By pursuing research in the “purest realms of
science” scientists may build the foundation for new products and processes
to deliver health, full employment, and military security to the nation.
Hence, public funding of basic research is vital for social progress and eco-
nomic growth:
“Advances in science when put to practical use mean more jobs, higher
wages, shorter hours, more abundant crops, more leisure for recreation,
for study, for learning how to live the deadening drudgery which has been
the burden of the common man for past ages. Advances in science will
also bring higher standards of living, will lead to the prevention or cure
of diseases, will promote conservation of our limited resources, and will
assure means of defense against aggression” (p. 10). “Without scientific
progress no amount of achievement in other directions can insure our
health, prosperity, and security as a nation in the modern world” (p. 11)
(quoted in Godin 2006, p. 644).
According to Godin (2006), the linear model emerged as a theoretical
construction of industrialists, consultants, and business schools, seconded by

economists in the early 20th century, in a period when science and innova-
tion were very much related to the State, a warfare, welfare and industrialist
State (Pestre, 2003). As many scholars have observed, this regime changed
in the 1970s with the emergence and increasing importance of a competi-
tiveness frame (Slaughter, Rhoades, 1996). The coupling of the linear model
and the competitiveness frame is now so strong as to make it possible to sug-
gest that the ‘master narrative’ or the imaginary of innovation is defined by
the attributes of technology centeredness, relatedness to the market, compe-
tition, entrepreneurism, diffusion, exclusivity and creative destruction.
Innovation studies have for long challenged the model of innovation in
a variety of ways. In the academic milieu, innovation is generally considered
as an interactive process. The chain-linked model proposed by Kline and
Rosenberg (1986) may be considered as a kind of consensual representation
(Figure 1). Interactions are the crucial element of the process; knowledge is
diverse (scientific knowledge, technological knowledge, action knowledge,
etc.); scientific knowledge is very often produced as an answer to practi-
cal problems; technological tools and infrastructure condition the agenda of
research. This emphasis on the role of interactions leads innovation studies
to broaden the scope of analysis and to take into account the innovation

systems in which they are embedded (Fagerberg, Verspagen, 2009). The

research agenda involved different dimensions which correspond to the
diversity and complexity of the innovation processes and the interac-
tions between levels, from isolated innovations to changes to the techno-
economic trajectory.
Hence, in the academic literature, the linear model is now often consid-
ered as a step in an evolutionary sequence. For instance, Rothwell (1992)
describes five generations of innovation models: technology push; demand
pull; coupling; integrated and systems integration/networking. Marinova
and Phillimore (2003) identify six generations of innovation models: black
box; linear (including technology push and demand pull); interactive; sys-
tems; evolutionary; and innovative milieu.
Figure 1 – The Chain-Linked model of innovation

Source : Kline, Rosenberg, 1986.
However, despite the broadening of the notion of innovation in aca-

demia, institutions responsible for innovation policy still tend to adopt
the definition of innovation proposed in the 1960s. Edler and Notwony
(2015, p. 14) note that: “Much of European, and certainly most of US innova-
tion policy, is still and mainly about competitiveness and growth, where the market

Pierre-Benoit JOLY
of ideas and innovation decides which direction knowledge production and innova-
tion will take.” (See also Edquist, 2014). Although innovation policies gener-
ally integrate the concept of national systems of innovation, they still draw
on a producer-centric perspective (Schot, Steinmuller, 2016). Note also
that, although the concept of innovation has broadened in the academic
literature, most of the studies still focus on economic productivity; interest
in such issues as sustainability remains marginal, although it has increased
since 2000 (Martin, 2013, p. 10).
To illustrate the lasting influence of the linear model, one can point to
the Lisbon Agenda of the European Union, the objective of 3% of GDP
invested in research, and the shaping of the knowledge economy. This
vision leads to implicit or explicit assertions that “Science is the solution,
society the problem”. Society is expected to become more entrepreneurial,
to become more accepting of and enthusiastic about new technology. It
can be seen as the 21st century version of the Chicago World Exhibition’s
catchphrase that “society has to conform”. So the key question we have to
address is why, despite being highly contested, does the linear model remain
dominant?
The first reason, the stickiness of the linear model, is related to its sim-
plicity. It is easier to represent innovation as a sequence of steps which flow
from upstream to downstream than to represent a complex web of interac-

tions.
The second reason is that several forms of institutionalisation play an
important role (Godin, 2006). First, statistics: the activities of many actors
involved in the design of statistical categories and indicators and in the
construction of data bases (for scientific production, patents, R&D indica-
tors, etc.) ensure that the linear model becomes a social fact. This contin-
ues to translate into the tools and indicators used to measure innovation
activity based mainly on R&D funding, and the numbers of researchers and
patents. The Frascati Manual, first published in 1963, is still the main refer-
ence at the international level (OECD 2002). The European Commission’s
Innovation Scoreboard also focuses on technological innovations in compa-
nies and their effect on economic growth (EC 2015). The OECD’s reviews
of national systems of innovation have had a major influence on the way
that key actors consider innovation dynamics and design innovation policy.
A recent report on the French national system (OECD 2014) provides a
flow chart which posits companies (businesses, startups) as the necessary
gateway in the innovation pathway, and which is oriented mainly towards
economic growth (Figure 2). Such a representation is typical of the domi-
nant socio-technical imaginary of innovation.

Figure 2 – Representation of a national system of innovation
Source : OECD 2014, p. 18.
A third reason is that many actors have strong interests attached to


this model. First, companies who perform R&D are the main beneficiaries
of public policies based on this model. They receive substantive subsidies
on the grounds that they are the core actors of innovation processes and
that innovation will improve their competitiveness, and hence the ability
of the Nation to perform in the international competition.2 Second, most
researchers are attached to the idea of pure and independent science and
its key importance in the provision of new disruptive knowledge to society,
although the historical evidence demonstrates that this is a myth (Rosenberg,
1982). Dan Sarewitz (2016) refers to this vision (very much related to the
Vannevar Bush legacy mentioned before) as the “big lie” upon which the
social contract between science and society is based. The attachment to pure
science is certainly deep-rooted but it has assumed a new topicality since the
late 1990s. The autonomy of the research profession is challenged by pres-
sures related to the neo-liberal agenda (public-private-partnerships are the
rule) and the implementation of the principles of New Public Management.
In this context, researchers use the rhetoric of pure science and the related
2. Among the different policy instruments, think of the R&D tax credit, close to €6 billion in
France, e.g. more than 10% of the national R&D budget.

Pierre-Benoit JOLY
golden goose legend. The linear model combines research autonomy with its
massive utility for society.
BROADENING INNOVATION IS HAPPENING

IN MANY WAYS
The reinvention of innovation is occurring in various ways (Joly et al.,
2010). We have alluded to the various burgeoning forms of innovation; now
we need to analyse this dynamic.
The diversity of forms of innovation is not new (Pavitt, 1984). However,
the explicit recognition of the diversity of sources of innovation and the chal-
lenge of the dominant model is now striking. The current interest displayed
by a number of large companies in open innovation is an initial indicator
of the current transformations. The notion of “open innovation” proposed by
Chesbrough (2003) has been enthusiastically taken up by such firms as Dell,
HP and Philips. It is seen as accounting for the distributed nature of knowl-
edge production and its adaptation to complex environments resulting from
market and user differentiation and globalisation. In open innovation actors
create hybrid organisations which mix public and private research platforms,
markets and research, etc.:

“Open innovation is the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowl-
edge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for exter-
nal use of innovation, respectively. [This paradigm] assumes that firms
can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal
and external paths to market, as they look to advance their technology”
(Chesbrough, Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, 2006).
However, although it is generally presented as a novelty, as a “new par-
adigm”, open innovation remains linked to the traditional imaginary and
the linear model of innovation. All the characteristics of this imaginary
listed above3, with the exception of exclusivity, remain valid and are even
reinforced. In the field of management the term open innovation captures
an important change which started in the 1970s and crystallises a series of
analyses which consider different transformations: the challenge of central
R&D divisions as the main source of innovation in Chandlerian compa-
nies; the steady growth of cooperative R&D agreements as a response to the
need to take advantage of positive network externalities in the process of
3. Technology centred, related to the market, competition, entrepreneurs, diffusionist, based on
exclusivity, creative destruction.

innovation; the invention of contractual arrangements and forms of intel-

lectual property which allow the circulation of knowledge and partial appro-
priation of innovation. However, when Chesbrough published his Open
Innovation (2003), these elements were already well established in the lit-
erature. Hence, the real challenge to the dominant model of innovation is
not related to the open innovation stream of research, as is often assumed.
We suggest instead that it is linked mainly to research highlighting the role
of users which emerged in the 1970s and which challenges the traditional
separation between innovation and diffusion.
Eric Von Hippel was one of the pioneers of this renewal. Working on
innovation in very different areas, he demonstrated that the sources of inno-
vation vary across situations, and that in sectors such as scientific instru-
mentation and semiconductors, users (usually companies, not individuals)
are the main source of innovation (Von Hippel, 1988). Innovation is based
on neither technology push nor demand pull; it is the result of interactions
among actors with complementary knowledge. Users are no longer seen as
only using; they learn by using, and in some situations they co-innovate.
This means also that users learn from each other, and that innovators can
learn from users. In his 1988 book, Von Hippel introduced the concept of
distributed innovation. Innovation is distributed if the process is fed by
various sources, for instance prototypes and experiments produced by users.
Importantly, Von Hippel observed that the exploitation of this diversity is

not natural but depends on the ability of firms to recognise these sources of
innovation, and to develop forms of organisation, and management tools
to take advantage of them. He claimed that this had major implications for
the management of innovation as well as for innovation policy (system level
analysis and policy, property rights, support for users, etc.).
In his more recent Democratizing Innovation, Von Hippel goes further
beyond a firm-centric analysis to consider numerous actors, including crea-
tive communities (Von Hippel, 2004). Distributed innovation challenges a
structural feature of the social division of labour, the separation between
users and consumers. Von Hippel identifies two engines of distributed inno-
vation. First, in the delegated model of innovation, standardised products are
the rule. Large manufacturers design products to meet the needs of a large
market segment to induce purchase by and capture significant profits from
a large number of customers. Distributed innovation allows the diversifica-
tion of product design to respond to the diversity of user needs. Second, the
contribution of users is growing as a result of continuing advances in comput-
ing and communications capabilities, and the digitalisation of many areas.
The example of OSS (open source software) – and the development
more widely of open access tools in information technologies – is often used

Pierre-Benoit JOLY
to illustrate the distributed model of innovation and to show that one of

the motives of its promoters is to redistribute agency, knowledge and power.
In other words, a normative model of society is also being performed. One
of the key features is the invention of collective property rights, through the
creation of the general public licence (GPL or copyleft): the right to use the
product at no cost, the right to modify it, and the right to distribute modified
or unmodified versions at no cost. Even when incorporated in commercial
tools, software protected by a GPL is not proprietary.
There are other examples, ranging from the involvement of patient
associations in medical research (Rabeharisoa, Callon, 2004), the role of
users in the design of software (Pollock et al., 2016), participatory plant
breeding research experiments and exchanges of experience in ‘peasant’
networks’ in France (Bonneuil et al., 2006), and bottom-up innovations in
low-input agriculture (Wiskerke, Van der Ploeg, 2004).4 In addition, the
recent cases of the 3D printer and the Reprap model show how techni-
cal devices (information technologies coupled with new manufacturing
devices) may reinforce the capacity of individuals to make (or hack) tech-
nology. Such technological transformations have some sociological drivers
as illustrated by the burgeoning of communities of makers, and new sites
where the creation of technology is actively distributed (FabLabs, Living
Labs, Hackers’ Spaces, etc.). In a distributed network, everyone is supposed
to contribute and to learn from each other. These peer-to-peer networks are

commonplace in computing and information technology. They allow com-
munities to share information and knowledge. The implications of peer-
to-peer go well beyond computer systems, and some scholars predict that
in the information age, it is the basis for a new socio-political constitution
(Benkler, 2006).
However, peer-to-peer innovation has three main limitations. First,
without incentives, contributions could decrease and the network might
collapse. Hence, a system of rules is essential; new types of property rights,
e.g. Copyleft Licences for OSS, are seldom invented. The communities of
distributed innovation produce neither private nor public goods but collec-
tive goods, and they follow the logic of the commons, which is currently
being investigated. Second, contributions in distributed networks are une-
venly distributed. Many studies show that the distribution of contributions
follows a power law. Hence, there are strong asymmetries in contributions,
reputation and power. Third, the vision of distributed innovation as com-
munication between similar actors covers a narrow spectrum of innovation.
4. For a recent comprehensive analysis of the role of users and distributed innovation, cf.
Hyssalo et al. (2016).

Actor-Network Theory (ANT) suggests that innovation is a process through

which heterogeneous networks emerge and stabilise. The basic operation is
not communication; it is a process of translation involving human and non-
human actors (Callon, 1986). Hence, peer-to-peer innovation is a specific
type of situation. From a broader perspective, peer-to-peer interactions are
based on these heterogeneous networks and their conditions of existence
need to be understood.
Another form of innovation, social innovation, has gained traction in
recent years. It is now on the agendas of major institutions such as the White
House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation in the U.S. and
the European Commission’s Innovation Policy Programme. Social inno-
vation has long been promoted by social movements that challenge del-
egated innovation and support bottom-up participation, protection of the
rights of ‘common’ citizens and collective decision-making systems. Since
the late 1990s, interest in social innovation has grown steadily in response
to macro-institutional changes such as the privatisation of many public
services, deregulation of markets, the heralding of elite consumerism as a
value system, etc. In this tradition, social innovation has three interrelated
goals: satisfaction of needs reconfigured social relations and empowerment
or political mobilisation (Moulaert et al., 2013). Note that these dimensions
are accounted for in official definitions, for instance:

“As well as meeting social needs and tackling societal challenges, social
innovations empower people and create new social relationships and
models of collaboration. They are thus innovative in themselves and good
for society’s capacity to innovate” (Innovation Union 2011, p. 24).
However, institutionalisation of social innovation is not aligned to the
social movements which praise its transformative role, challenge tradi-
tional relations of power, and aim at fostering solidarity, empowerment and
social wellbeing. Hence, the definition of social innovation and the way
that public policies might support it are currently contested (Klein, Laville,
Moulaert, 2014).
Note that, from the perspective of the social construction of technol-
ogy (SCOT) and ANT, the term “social innovation” is problematic since
both these approaches have struggled to demonstrate that innovation is
both technical and social. Both “technical innovation” and “social innova-
tion” are socio-technical, meaning that innovation processes always involve
a hybrid dynamic. However, research on social innovation could contribute
to the current renewal of the science and technology studies (STS) research
agenda, which insists on the need to focus on institutions and power asym-
metries (Moore, Frickel, 2005; Joly, 2015).

Pierre-Benoit JOLY
Identification of these models of innovation leads to acknowledgement

of the diversity of innovation processes, according to which different sources
of innovation are exploited, and the roles of actors vary. Whose voices
count? Who defines the objectives? Who contributes, and how? These mod-
els of innovation differ in terms of their embedded organisation and social
values. This contributes to the variety of moral economies of innovation
summarised in Table 1. The concept of a moral economy (Thompson, 1971,
Daston, 1995; Götz, 2015) is useful since it refers to two dimensions that
condition local order: an organised system (made of rules, material devices,
ways of knowing, discourses, actors) that displays some regularities (the
term “economy”); a set of affect-saturated values that stand and function
in well-defined relation to one another and that legitimise action (the term
“moral”).
Table 1 – The moral economies of innovation
Linear model Users’ innovation Distributed Innovation Social Innovation
Role of Potential Users are also No strict boundary Users are also
users adopters innovators between users and innovators
innovators
Sources New science and Fine-tune Crowd effects Empowerment,
of technology adaptation to collective action
innovation users’ needs

Key Firms, Academic Firms, Consumers Creative communities Local communities,
actors Labs Knowledge brokers,
Social entrepreneurs
Property Exclusive rights Innovations “Commons” Auto-regulation
rights embedded in the
social
Frame Competitiveness, Economic growth, Counter-culture, Social
economic post-Fordism Hacking, Sharing transformation
growth, Fordism
Values Economic Satisfaction of Autonomy, creativity Reduction in
welfare users’ needs inequality, Fight
against poverty
The three alternative models have common features, although they are
different. First, these models align innovation less with market forces than
with social needs. Second, processes of innovation are related to democrati-
sation, community building, empowerment, increase in social capital. And
finally, these models display different ways to search for alternatives to the
incumbent system.

THE NEED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE

OF THE DIRECTIONALITY OF INNOVATION
In the previous section we touched on the directionality of innovation. This
issue is central to social innovation: innovation is not just good in itself; it
aims to respond to the social needs of specific communities, and to changing
social relations. Nevertheless, the debate on directionality is pervasive and
goes well beyond social innovation. Note especially that this is the focus of
the literature on socio-technical transitions which has grown since the late
1990s and which analyses the systemic changes needed to change the direc-
tion of innovation (Grin et al., 2009). In this perspective, innovation mat-
ters in so far as it helps to unlock past technological trajectories and enhance
sustainability. Along these lines, the STEPS Centre at the University of
Sussex launched a “New Manifesto” calling for a new 3D agenda with direc-
tion, distribution and diversity at the core of innovation policies. The direc-
tions of the paths to innovation may vary; the New Manifesto claims that
it is necessary to make choices and to foster more diverse and more fairly
distributed forms – and directions – of innovation towards greater social jus-
tice. This requires change to the ways that innovation is shaped via agenda
setting, funding, capacity building, organisational arrangements and moni-
toring, evaluation and accountability. Directionality is also at the core of
Horizon 2020, the current European Framework programme for research and

innovation:
“A challenge-based approach will bring together resources and knowl-
edge across different fields, technologies and disciplines, including social
sciences and the humanities. This will cover activities from research to
market with a new focus on innovation-related activities, such as pilot-
ing, demonstration, test-beds, and support for public procurement and
market uptake.”5
We suggest that the four models presented in the previous sections are
poorly adapted to address the issue of directionality. In the linear model,
directionality means a central actor with the capacity to design and manage
the process from the production of basic knowledge to the definition of the
use of innovation. This may apply to Manhattan-type projects where there is
no uncertainty about goals, and technical uncertainty is limited. This means
of managing directionality has been at the forefront of research policy since
the end of WWII and is very much related to the ability of nation states
to stabilise their technical and socio-economic environments. This was the
5. https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/societal-challenges

Pierre-Benoit JOLY
golden age of mission-oriented research which was so important for build-

ing technologies for energy, transportation, healthcare, etc. However, since
the late 1970s and the neo-liberal focus, directionality has been delegated
to market forces and the state has lost its ability to govern complex and sys-
temic processes (Mazzucato, 2015).
On the other hand, the three alternative models are adapted to orient
innovation processes according to communities’ or users’ needs. Since their
orientation is determined by bottom-up processes, these innovation pro-
cesses allow exploration of diverse pathways. Andy Stirling (2008) would
say that they ‘open up’ many possibilities, and they also enhance the diver-
sity of the innovation process. They challenge incumbent systems and the
entrenched interests of powerful actors. However, there is a risk of fragmen-
tation. Strong coordination devices and selection processes are also nec-
essary to foster systemic transformations. Therefore, there is also a need
to ‘close up’ (to reverse Stirling’s expression), i.e. to foster the possibility
of development via a strong selection mechanism. From this perspective,
beyond local exploration, we also need to understand the process of the gen-
eralisation of local experiences. This leads us to point out limitations in the
current literature on social innovation, which does not properly discuss this
issue. On the other hand, in traditional innovation theory, generalisation
is seen as a process of diffusion which is not meaningful for social innova-

tion. Against this background ANT allows generalisation to be conceived
as a chain of translations which creates the conditions for the circulation
of knowledge, ideas, competencies, objects, etc. In the case of social inno-
vation, this probably requires a focus on all the spaces and vectors which
allow the intensification of productive interactions as in a pollination model
(think for instance of the role of intermediaries, platforms of social innova-
tors, etc.). More research is needed to better understand the process of gen-
eralisation in situations that do not fit with the traditional representation of
the diffusion process.
Given the limitations of the various existing models to address direc-
tionality there is some space for research. There is a question related to the
balance between exploration and generalisation but the main issue is related
to the relation between both phases of the innovation process. Transition
models address this in part when they deal with multilevel processes (niches,
regime landscape). However, the question of generalisation has not yet been
addressed in a satisfactory way.
Accordingly, it will be necessary to consider innovation policy in a
renewed perspective. The need for anticipation, experimentation, learn-
ing, and the formation of bridging networks and alliances implies that it

is necessary to imagine new institutional arrangements and governance

structures that cut across governments, markets, and civil society (Schot,
Steinmuller, 2016). Hence, it is necessary to consider the role of the state in
order to steer innovation in a manner which mixes new experiments, and
which is both bottom-up and top-down and fosters interactive innovation as
well as systemic transformations (Kuhlman, Rip, 2014).
CONCLUSION
In this paper we first highlighted a type of paradox. Although we live in an
exceptional period where innovation seems to have been reinvented, inno-
vation policies remain geared to the linear model of innovation and the
competitiveness framework, which continues to be the dominant paradigm.
The first contribution of this paper lies in its identification of the reasons
for the stickiness of this dominant paradigm. The second contribution lies
in its discussion of four models of innovation and their moral economies.
This characterisation is important since innovation is society in the mak-
ing. Alternative models are not utopian; rather they are collective experi-
ments involving the engagement of multiple actors. There is a need for more
studies in this vein, not about a specific kind of model but the full range of
collective experiments. Understanding these experiments is crucial for the

deinstitutionalisation of the linear model. The study of current European
policies to encourage interactive innovation in the Horizon 2020 Framework
Programme may be a good opportunity to pursue such a line of enquiry.
We also proposed another broad argument. In line with the currently
acknowledged need for directionality of innovation policies, we showed
that the current models of innovation are poorly adapted. On the one hand,
the linear model is strongly related to the competitiveness frame (invest in
research and leave the rest to the market). An older version of the linear
model – the basis of mission-oriented projects after WWII – is an exam-
ple. However, the need for directionality does not fit with command-con-
trol management since the detailed objectives are not given but have to
be designed in the course of the innovation process. On the other hand,
alternative models are not limited to the competitiveness framework; these
alternative processes produce innovations which fit with the objectives of
given communities and challenge incumbent systems. However, although
they are important for exploring original pathways and they increase actors’
capabilities, their ability to address societal challenges is limited.
We would then suggest that the current ‘democratisation of innovation’
(to use Von Hippel’s expression), an important goal as such, is not enough

Pierre-Benoit JOLY
to address societal challenges. In order to articulate these objectives – both

of which are equally important ‑ research and experimentation is required to
allow a better understanding of the relation between exploration and gen-
eralisation.
REFERENCES
BENKLER, Y. (2006), The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets
and Freedom, New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press.
BONNEUIL, C., DEMEULENAERE, E., THOMAS, F., JOLY, P. B., ALLAIRE, G.,
GOLDRINGER, I. (2006), Innover autrement? La recherche agronomique face à
l’avènement d’un nouveau régime de production et régulation des savoirs en génétique
végétale, Courrier de l’environnement de l’INRA, (30), 29-52.
BOZEMAN, B., SAREWITZ, D. (2011), Public Value Mapping and Science Policy
Evaluation. Minerva, 49, 1–23.
CALLON, M. (1986), Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the
Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay, in John Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief:
A New Sociology of Knowledge, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 196-233.
CHESBROUGH, H. (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profit
ing from Technology, Boston, Mass., Harvard Business School Press.
DASTON, L. (1995), Moral Economies of Science, Osiris, 2nd Series, 10, 2-24.
EC (2015), Innovation Union Scoreboard, Brussels, European Commission.

EDGERTON, D. (2004), The Linear Model’ did not Exist: Reflections on the History
and Historiography of Science and Research in Industry in the Twentieth Century, in
Grandin, K., Wormbs, N. (eds), The Science–Industry Nexus: History, Policy, Implications,
New York, Watson, 31-57.
EDLER, J., NOWOTNY, E. (2015), The Pervasiveness of Innovation and Why We
Need to Re-think Innovation Policy to Rescue it, in Rat für Forschung und Technologie
entwicklung (Hg., 2015), Die Gestaltung der Zukunft: Wirtschaftliche, Gesellschaftliche und
Politische Dimensionen von Innovation, Wien, Echomedia Buchverlag.
EDQUIST, C. (2014), Striving Towards a Holistic Innovation Policy in European
Countries – but Linearity Still Prevails!, Science, Technology And Innovation Policy Review,
5(2), 3-19.
FAGERBERG, J., VERSPAGEN, B. (2009), Innovation Studies – The Emerging Structure
of a New Scientific Field, Research Policy, 38, 218-233.
FRICKEL, S., MOORE, K. (eds.) (2005), The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions,
Networks, and Power, Madison, University of Wisconsin Press.
GODIN, B. (2006), The Linear Model of Innovation: The Historical Construction of an
Analytical Framework, Science Technology & Human Values, 31(6), 639-667.
GODIN, B. (2015), Innovation: A Conceptual History of an Anonymous Concept, Working
Paper 21, http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/WorkingPaper21.pdf
GÖTZ, N. (2015), ‘Moral Economy’: Its Conceptual History and Analytical Prospects,
Journal of Global Ethics, 11(2), 147-162.

GRIN, J., ROTMANS, J., SCHOT, J. (2010), Transitions to Sustainable Development: New
Directions in the Study of Long Term Structural Change, New York, Routledge.
HYYSALO, S., JENSEN, T. E., OUDSHOORN, N. (eds) (2016), The New Production
of Users Changing Innovation Collectives and Involvement Strategies, New York, Routledge.
JASANOFF, S., KIM, S. H. (2015), Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and
the Fabrication of Power, Chicago, Chicago University Press.
JOLY, P. B. (2015), Governing Emerging Technologies – The Need to Think Outside the
(Black) Box, in Hilgartner, S., Miller, C., Hagendijk, R. Science and Democracy: Knowledge
as Wealth and Power in the Biosciences and Beyond, New York, Routledge.
JOLY, P. B., RIP, A., CALLON, M. (2010), Re-inventing Innovation, in Arentsen, M. J.,
Van Rossum, W., Steenge, A. E. (ed.), Governance of Innovation, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
KLEIN, J. L., LAVILLE, J. L., MOULAERT, F. (2014), L’innovation sociale, Paris, ERES.
KLINE, S. J., ROSENBERG, N. (1986), An Overview of Innovation, in Landau, R.,
Rosenberg, N. (eds.), The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth,
Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 275-305.
KUHLMANN, S., RIP, A. (2014), The Challenge of Addressing Grand Challenges: A Think
Piece on How Innovation can be Driven Towards the “Grand Challenges” as Defined Under the
Prospective European Union Framework Programme Horizon 2020, Twente, Steps Centre,
University of Twente.
MARINOVA D., PHILLIMORE, P. (2003), Models of Innovation, in Shavinina, L. V.,
The International Handbook on Innovation, Amsterdam, Elsevier Science.
MARTIN, B. R. (2012), The Evolution of Science Policy and Innovation Studies, Research
Policy, 41, 1219-1239.

MARTIN, B. R. (2013), Twenty Challenges for Innovation Studies, Centre for Business
Research, University of Cambridge.
MAZZUCATO, M. (2015), From Market Fixing to Market-Creating: A New Framework for
Economic Policy, University of Sussex Working Paper Series, SWPS 2015-25 (September).
MOULAERT, F., MACCALLUM, D., MEHMOOD, A., HAMDOUCH, A. (2013), The
International Handbook on Social Innovation – Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdis
ciplinary Research, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
OECD (2002), Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental
Development – Frascati Manual, Paris, OECD.
OECD. (2014), OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: France 2014, Paris, OECD Publishing,
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264214026-en
PAVITT, K. (1984), Sectoral Patterns of Technical Change: Towards a Taxonomy and a
Theory, Research Policy, 13, 343-373.
PESTRE, D. (2003), Science, argent et politique, Paris, Quae.
POLLOCK, N., WILLIAMS, R., D’ADDERIO, L. (2016), Generification as a Strategy:
How Software Producers Configure Products, Manage User Communities and Segment
Markets, in Hyysalo, S., Jensen, T. E., Oudshoorn, N. (eds), The New Production of Users
Changing Innovation Collectives and Involvement Strategies, New York, Routledge.
RABEHARISOA, V., CALLON, M. (2004), Patients and Scientists in French Muscular
Dystrophy Research, in Jasanoff, S.(ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science
and Social Order, London, Routledge, 142-160.

Pierre-Benoit JOLY
ROSENBERG, N. (1982), Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics, Cambridge MA,
Cambridge University Press.
ROTHWELL, R. (1992), Successful Industrial Innovation: Critical Factors for the 1990s,
R&D Management, 22(3), 221-240.
SAREWITZ, D. (2016), Saving Science, The New Atlantis, Spring-Summer, 5-41.
SCHOT, J. (2014), Transforming Innovation Policy, Keynote address at Edges, Horizons, and
Transformations: The Future of Innovation Policy, SPRU, University of Sussex, October 21.
SCHOT, J., STEINMULLER E. (2016), Framing Innovation Policy for Transformative
Change: Innovation Policy 3.0, Brighton, SPRU, Draft, 4/9/2016
SLAUGHTER, S., RHOADES, G. (1996), The Emergence of a Competitiveness R&D
Policy Coalition and the Commercialization of Academic Science and Technology,
Science Technology & Human Values, 21(3), 303-339.
SOETE, L. (2013), Is Innovation Always Good?, in Fagerberg, J., Martin, B. R., Andersen,
E. S., Innovation Studies – Evolution and Future Challenges, Oxford, Oxford University Press,
134-144.
SCRASE, I., STIRLING, A., GEELS, F. W., SMITH, A., VAN ZWANENBERG, P.
(2009), Transformative Innovation: A Report to the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs, SPRU – Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.
STIRLING, A. (2008), ‘Opening Up’ and ‘Closing Down’ Power, Participation, and
Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology, Science Technology and Human Values,
33(2), 262-294.
STIRLING, A. (2014), Democratising Innovation, SPRU, University of Sussex, http://
sussex.ac.uk/Users/prfh0/innovation_democracy.pdf

THOMPSON, E. P. (1971), The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth
Century, Past and Present, 50, 76-136.
VON HIPPEL, E. (1988), The Sources of Innovation, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
VON HIPPEL, E. (2004), Democratizing Innovation, Cambridge Mass., MIT Press.
WISKERKE, J. S. C., VAN DER PLOEG, J. D. (eds) (2004), Seeds of Transition: Essays on
Novelty Production, Niches and Regimes in Agriculture, Assen, Royal Van Gorcum.

Jie PR1 0005

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Jie PR1 0005

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

BEYOND THE COMPETITIVENESS FRAMEWORK?

De Boeck Supérieur | « Journal of Innovation Economics & Management »

Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour De Boeck Supérieur.

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 25/01/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 185.186.81.198)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 25/01/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 185.186.81.198)

Although a focus on innovation is not new, the way it currently brings

n° 22 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2017/1 79

‘open innovation’ is the new buzzword; however, the phenomenon is much

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 25/01/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 185.186.81.198)

80 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2017/1 – n° 22

distribution of power and agency, collective learning, social relations, etc.

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 25/01/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 185.186.81.198)

THE DOMINANT IMAGINARY

n° 22 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2017/1 81

temporary monopoly associated with their advance in the diffusion of inno-

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 25/01/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 185.186.81.198)

82 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2017/1 – n° 22

systems in which they are embedded (Fagerberg, Verspagen, 2009). The

Figure 1 – The Chain-Linked model of innovation

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 25/01/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 185.186.81.198)

Source : Kline, Rosenberg, 1986.

However, despite the broadening of the notion of innovation in aca-

n° 22 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2017/1 83

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 25/01/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 185.186.81.198)

84 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2017/1 – n° 22

Figure 2 – Representation of a national system of innovation

Source : OECD 2014, p. 18.

A third reason is that many actors have strong interests attached to

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 25/01/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 185.186.81.198)

n° 22 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2017/1 85

BROADENING INNOVATION IS HAPPENING

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 25/01/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 185.186.81.198)

86 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2017/1 – n° 22

innovation; the invention of contractual arrangements and forms of intel-

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 25/01/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 185.186.81.198)

n° 22 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2017/1 87

to illustrate the distributed model of innovation and to show that one of

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 25/01/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 185.186.81.198)

88 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2017/1 – n° 22

Actor-Network Theory (ANT) suggests that innovation is a process through

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 25/01/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 185.186.81.198)

n° 22 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2017/1 89

Identification of these models of innovation leads to acknowledgement

Table 1 – The moral economies of innovation

Linear model Users’ innovation Distributed Innovation Social Innovation

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 25/01/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 185.186.81.198)

90 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2017/1 – n° 22

THE NEED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 25/01/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 185.186.81.198)

n° 22 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2017/1 91

golden age of mission-oriented research which was so important for build-

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 25/01/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 185.186.81.198)

92 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2017/1 – n° 22

is necessary to imagine new institutional arrangements and governance

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 25/01/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 185.186.81.198)

n° 22 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2017/1 93

to address societal challenges. In order to articulate these objectives – both

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 25/01/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 185.186.81.198)

94 Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2017/1 – n° 22

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 25/01/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 185.186.81.198)

n° 22 – Journal of Innovation Economics & Management – 2017/1 95

© De Boeck Supérieur | Téléchargé le 25/01/2021 sur www.cairn.info (IP: 185.186.81.198)

to address societal challenges. In order to articulate these objectives – both