Since the eruption of the Covid-19 pandemic, in response to the global health emergency, governments have focused on designing policies aimed at the development of more innova- tive products and services. Effective collaboration, communication, and Open Innovation (OI) between government organizations, education and research institutions, and the mar- ketplace have been fundamental to the success of each country’s response during the crisis period. Using a comprehensive data set from OECD on innovation policies implemented by governments before and during the Covid-19 crisis, this paper analyses the extent to which these innovation policies promote OI and how these policy decisions evolve to support an effective response to the pandemic. Through a cluster analysis, we identify four possible government innovation policy strategies (centralizers; conservative OI promoters; collabo- rative supporters; open collaborators) and analyze how these strategies evolve before and during Covid-19. Our findings confirm that even though there is an increased use of innova- tion policies promoting OI during the crisis, there is little evidence of consistency between the policy strategy used pre-Covid and during the crisis for each country. However, there is an increased use of four types of innovation policy instruments, i.e., those entailing for- mal consultation with stakeholders and experts; fellowships and postgraduate loans and scholarships; networking and collaborative platforms; and dedicated support to research infrastructures. Although the paper limits the scope of the analysis to the early government reactions in selected OECD countries, it captures an important moment in time (i.e., reac- tion to a severe shock), which opens avenues for future studies.

The impact of Covid‐19 on innovation policies promoting Open Innovation

Patrucco, Andrea S.;Trabucchi, Daniel;Frattini, Federico;
2021-01-01

Abstract

Since the eruption of the Covid-19 pandemic, in response to the global health emergency, governments have focused on designing policies aimed at the development of more innova- tive products and services. Effective collaboration, communication, and Open Innovation (OI) between government organizations, education and research institutions, and the mar- ketplace have been fundamental to the success of each country’s response during the crisis period. Using a comprehensive data set from OECD on innovation policies implemented by governments before and during the Covid-19 crisis, this paper analyses the extent to which these innovation policies promote OI and how these policy decisions evolve to support an effective response to the pandemic. Through a cluster analysis, we identify four possible government innovation policy strategies (centralizers; conservative OI promoters; collabo- rative supporters; open collaborators) and analyze how these strategies evolve before and during Covid-19. Our findings confirm that even though there is an increased use of innova- tion policies promoting OI during the crisis, there is little evidence of consistency between the policy strategy used pre-Covid and during the crisis for each country. However, there is an increased use of four types of innovation policy instruments, i.e., those entailing for- mal consultation with stakeholders and experts; fellowships and postgraduate loans and scholarships; networking and collaborative platforms; and dedicated support to research infrastructures. Although the paper limits the scope of the analysis to the early government reactions in selected OECD countries, it captures an important moment in time (i.e., reac- tion to a severe shock), which opens avenues for future studies.
2021
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
radm.12495.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: PDF
: Publisher’s version
Dimensione 150.16 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
150.16 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11311/1180942
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 46
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 26
social impact