Loading…

Industrial R&D and national innovation policy: an institutional reappraisal of the US national innovation system

Studies highlight how the once envied US national innovation system (NIS) is now showing signs of slowing down. In this article, we unpack this issue from an industrial R&D perspective. First, we highlight that open innovation (OI) practices (i.e., external sources and markets for technologies)...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Industrial and corporate change 2022-10, Vol.31 (5), p.1152-1176
Main Authors: Shaikh, Ibrahim A, Randhawa, Krithika
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Studies highlight how the once envied US national innovation system (NIS) is now showing signs of slowing down. In this article, we unpack this issue from an industrial R&D perspective. First, we highlight that open innovation (OI) practices (i.e., external sources and markets for technologies) have increased the rate of inventive activity in the current wave of industrial R&D, but financialization skews the firms’ focus on short-term profits and shareholder value maximization. When OI intersects with an institutional context that propagates such shareholder-centric governance of R&D, three social costs are incurred by the US NIS: (i) irrational relationship between risks and rewards, (ii) weak antitrust and intellectual property (IP) rights that result in a lack of business dynamism, and (iii) austerity and weak demand-side policies. We contend that these social costs tilt the R&D trajectory toward incremental R&D at the expense of the blue-sky science needed to retain US leadership in technological innovation. Second, we document three social benefits that public-sector R&D agencies generate for the US NIS: (i) undertaking a technology brokerage role, (ii) creating radical R&D markets, and (iii) embracing stakeholder governance. We emphasize how a hidden “entrepreneurial network state” subtly creates and shapes breakthrough R&D and markets for private sector firms but cannot recoup the rewards for society due to political rhetoric that favors incumbent market power. Third, we recommend both incremental and radical policies to drive institutional reforms that promote a stakeholder-centric form of R&D governance so that the future wave of industrial R&D creates value for society. Overall, we draw attention to the role politics plays in industrial R&D and the US NIS and how small adjustments in institutional dimensions and governance modes can impact the US R&D trajectory and competitiveness.
ISSN:0960-6491
1464-3650
DOI:10.1093/icc/dtac019