LIST OF PANELS

We propose a panel to examine how organizations respond to the evolution of innovation policy. Although there is a large literature on how to organize for innovation policy (Breznitz and Ornston and Samford 2018; Evans 1995; Karo, Drechsler, and Kattel 2022; Johnson 1982), scholars have typically treated those organizational structures as a constant, debating whether the optimal innovation agency is a prominent pilot agency or a peripheral one, highly centralized or loosely coupled, and embedded within markets or autonomous from them. Scholars have seldom examined how these organizational structures change over time. We argue that this is an important omission for three reasons. First, innovation policy, almost by definition, is characterized by continuous change. This is particularly true for innovation agencies which are tasked with targeting fundamentally new industries (Breznitz and Ornston 2013), but it also applies to organizations which are responsible with upgrading existing ones. Even these, more incrementally oriented intermediaries need to develop new policy instruments as their target industries evolve (Breznitz 2008). Second, growing attention to the “directionality” of innovation and an interest in mission-based policies in particular (Kuhlman and Rip 2014; Mazzucato 2021) has forced organizations to grapple with a wider range of societal goals beyond their historically narrower focus on economic growth or national security. Here, we find that there is almost no discussion at all about what (if) is and should be the relationship between those innovation agencies and social innovation.  This broader mandate forces organizations to engage with an even wider range of stakeholders, both domestic and international, including some who have played a historically marginal position in innovation policy. Finally, and following directly from this, the growing political salience of innovation policy has challenged organizations which historically operated in a relatively hidden, technocratic space (Breznitz and Ornston 2018). We do not have a particularly good theory of the politics of innovation policy, since innovation studies rarely focuses on politics and political economists rarely concentrate on innovation (Ornston 2022). How do innovation agencies, and other organizations responsible for creating and implementing innovation policy, respond to this fluid and ever-evolving environment? How have organizations managed, or struggled, to develop new policy instruments? How have they grappled with a more diverse array of stakeholders? And how have they more or less successfully adapted to a more highly politicized environment? While this shifting environment is particularly challenging for policymakers, we propose to open up the discussion to a wider range of actors in innovation policy, including innovation agencies, universities, and civic organizations, in order to maximize the opportunities for dialogue and learning. We envision two in-person panels chaired by Dan Breznitz (Professor, University of Toronto and Taki Sarantakis (President of the Canada School of Public Service), one focusing on academic research and another engaging innovation policymakers.

How do organizations adapt to changes in innovation policy? There is a long literature on how to organize for innovation policy, debating whether the optimal innovation agency is a prominent pilot agency or a peripheral one, highly centralized or loosely coupled, and embedded within markets or autonomous from them. Scholars have paid less attention to how these organizations evolve over time. We argue that this static approach to the study of innovation organizations is problematic for three reasons. First, innovation policy, almost by definition, is characterized by continuous change. This is particularly true for innovation agencies which are tasked with targeting fundamentally new industries, but it also applies to organizations which are responsible with upgrading existing ones. Even these, more incrementally oriented intermediaries need to develop new policy instruments as their target industries evolve. Second, growing attention to the “directionality” of innovation and an interest in mission-based policies in particular has forced organizations to grapple with a wider range of societal goals beyond their historically narrower focus on economic growth or national security. Here, we find that there is almost no discussion at all about what (if) is and should be the relationship between those innovation agencies and social innovation. This broader mandate forces organizations to engage with an even wider range of stakeholders, both domestic and international, including some who have played a historically marginal position in innovation policy. Finally, and following directly from this, the growing political salience of innovation policy has challenged organizations which historically operated in a relatively hidden, technocratic space. We do not have a particularly good theory of the politics of innovation policy, since innovation studies rarely focuses on politics and political economists rarely concentrate on innovation. How do innovation agencies, and other organizations responsible for creating and implementing innovation policy, respond to this fluid and ever-evolving environment? How have organizations managed, or struggled, to develop new policy instruments? How have they grappled with a more diverse array of stakeholders? And how have they more or less successfully adapted to a more highly politicized environment? We welcome contributions covering a wide range of different organizations involved in innovation policy, including public agencies, innovation intermediaries, universities, and civic organizations.