Resumo

The growing awareness of new approaches for problem solving related to innovation policy (IP) has recently sparked the interest of both policy makers and researchers.Innovation policy (IP) has long been a concern for both academics and practitioners since publications around the theme were outlined by Atkinson (1991), who discussed innovation in the U.S. federal policy-making process. Ybarra et al. (1991) also discussed technological innovation policies to put into practice the Spanish model of technological parks (Atkinson, 1991; Ybarra et al., 1991).

While an increasing number of studies are being published every year, a holistic overview of the field is not in the spotlight. Therefore, this paper extant IP literature to debate where the academic community has intensified the research and what is now demanded in the discipline

In recent years, researchers have investigated political and societal factors related to IP development and its eventual diffusion (Penm et al., 2017; Shinkevich & Ivanova, 2017; Vallett, 2021; Wanzenböck et al., 2020). Additionally, environmental aspects and bioeconomy have also involved private and public sectors in IP development (Cappellano et al., 2021; Kirs et al., 2021). Worldwide uncertainties and complexity make it more difficult for governments to recognize the need for responsible IP as a strategic issue to enhance countries’ sustainability (van Est, 2017).

First, it performs topic modeling of major innovation policy journals from 1991 to 2021 to capture the field’s debates. Second, it is conducted by the Delphi method, composed of innovation policy specialists in different countries, to identify issues that they consider important for IP evolution. Third, it compares topic modeling and the Delphi results to consider key questions, inconsistencies, and discrepancies within the academic literature

The findings reveal four mainstreams for the later generation of IP: innovative systems strategies toward the bioeconomy, social challenges to support people’s rights, environmental challenges to maintain world survival, and political and regulatory contexts to sustain IP under capitalist forces.

These topics are relevant to researchers and practitioners because they embrace sociotechnical aspects such as structures (laws and regulations), people (individuals, groups, roles, institutions, and organizations), technology (physical technology), tasks, and responsibilities (what role is kept, in what format, who is responsible for), which interact with any countries' context.

Edler, J., & Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: What, why, and how. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 2–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grx001 Edquist, C. (2019). Toward a holistic innovation policy: Can the Swedish National Innovation Council (NIC) be a role model? Research Policy, 48(4), 869–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.008 Fagerberg, J., & Hutschenreiter, G. (2020). Coping with Societal Challenges: Lessons for Innovation Policy Governance. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 20(2), 279–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-019-00332-1