SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit

Friday seminar

SPRU Friday seminars take place every Friday during term time at 1pm in Jubilee Building room G32, unless specified otherwise. 

Sandwiches will be served from 12.55pm. Coffee will be served from 2pm, during a very short break introducing the discussion sessions. The seminar is followed by a SPRU presentation/discussion on topic related to the seminar.


For more information, material and seminar suggestions, please contact  SPRU-events@sussex.ac.uk

Mailing list

To be kept up to date with information on forthcoming seminars, please email your name and affiliation to SPRU-events@sussex.ac.uk with 'subscribe' in the subject heading. To unsubscribe,  email the same address with 'unsubscribe' in the subject heading.

Past seminars

For details of past events from the current and previous terms, view past seminars in our series archive

Upcoming seminars

Please find a list of seminars for the current term below - you can view abstracts and speaker biographies for upcoming events by clicking on seminar titles.

Can Green Government Spending Facilitate Employment Transitions in a Low Carbon Economy?

Friday 28 February from 13:00 until 15:00
JUB - G32
SPRU Friday seminars
Giovanni Marin (University of Urbino)

Abstract The effect of environmental policy on employment is still hotly debated. Environmental advocates argue that stronger environmental policies...

How Monopoly, Technology and Finance Drive Regional Inequality

Friday 6 March from 13:00 until 15:00
JUB - G32
SPRU Friday seminar
Simona Immarino (LSE)

How Monopoly, Technology and Finance Drive Regional Inequality.

Product Innovation Strategy for Value Capture: New Style without Superior Quality

Friday 13 March from 13:00 until 15:00
JUB - G32
SPRU Friday seminar
Kenny Ching (UCL Management)

Abstract: To be confirmed

Resolving the Mobility Paradox: The Contingent Value of R&D Managers’ Mobility across Divisions for Innovation

Friday 20 March from 13:00 until 15:00
JUB - G32
SPRU Friday Seminar
Paola Criscuolo (Imperial College)

Resolving the Mobility Paradox: The Contingent Value of R&D Managers’ Mobility across Divisions for Innovation Performance

Tact and technology in psychological praxis

Friday 27 March from 13:00 until 15:00
JUB - G32
SPRU Friday seminar
Maarten Derksen (University of Groningen)

Abstract: The practical application of Psychology is often seen as, ideally, a form of engineering.

Datification as a Tool for Representation: Navigating Data Sharing and Inequity within Scientific Knowledge Product

Friday 24 April from 13:00 until 15:00
JUB - G32
SPRU Friday seminar
Sabina Leonelli (Exeter University)

Datification as a Tool for Representation: Navigating Data Sharing and Inequity within Scientific Knowledge Production

When does novelty pay?: The role of technological novelty in US medical device startup firm funding and success

Friday 1 May from 13:00 until 15:00
JUB - G32
SPRU Friday seminar
Colleen Cunningham (London Business School)

Colleen Cunningham is an Assistant Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at London Business School.

Friday seminar series archive

Autumn 2019
4 October
Breaking the Housing-Finance cycle: policy options for more affordable housing
Josh Ryan Collins(UCL)


Dr. Josh Ryan-Collins, Head of Research at UCL’s Institute for Innovate and Public Purpose, will present his work on the links between the macroeconomy and the housing and land market. His key argument is that the housing affordability and wealth inequality crises facing advanced economies are driven by the emergence of a feedback cycle between finance and landed property. The cycle has been created by the increasing policy preference for private home ownership coupled with the liberalization of bank credit and accompanying financial innovation. Under such conditions, landed property becomes both the most attractive form of collateral for the banking system and the most desirable form of financial asset for households and investors. Dr Ryan-Collins will argue that demand-side reforms, more than the supply-side reforms that dominate policy discussion, are required to break this cycle. In particular (a) structural and institutional reforms to banking systems, including central banks; and (b) land policy reforms targeted at reducing the potential for rent extraction and speculative profits from property ownership.


Josh Ryan-Collins, PhD, is Head of Research at UCL’s Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose. He was previously Senior Economist at the New Economics Foundation (NEF), one of the UK’s leading progressive think tanks where he worked for 10 years. His research interests include money and banking, the economics of land and housing, innovation and climate finance. He is the author of three books, two co-authored: Where Does Money Come From? (2011, New Economics Foundation); Rethinking the Economics of Land and Housing (2017, Zed books) which was included in the Financial Times’ top 12 economics books of 2017; and Why Can’t you Afford a Home (2018, Polity). He has published numerous academic papers and policy reports in the field of finance, including on monetary policy, credit and asset prices, central bank independence and inflation, financial system resilience and the role of central banks in advanced and emerging markets in supporting a low carbon transition. He holds a PhD in economics and finance from the University of Southampton Business school.

11 October
Mobilizing the transformative power of the research system for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals
Matias Ramirez(SPRU)


This seminar addresses the important question of how national research systems can support the implementation of the United Nations 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) set out in the 2030 agenda. Much attention on this topic has so far coalesced around understanding and measuring possible synergies and trade-offs that emerge in the SDGs. We contribute to this discussion by arguing that it is necessary to move from a focus on system interaction towards system transformation. A conceptual approach is presented based on the notion that cross-disciplinary research that “builds bridges” between science and technology and the social and environmental pillars of sustainable development can more fully support simultaneous achievement of the SDGs and thus be transformational. This proposition is put to the test empirically through a study of the Mexican research system using methods from bibliometrics and social network analysis. The result of this research can help to provide a diagnostic of how research systems are approaching SDGs and where potential exists for transformative research.


“Recently the focus of my research has been on innovation policy and societal grand challenges, with particular emphasis on questions of inclusion and sustainability in Latin America. This has led to a number of projects and publications on topics related to small producer involvement in agribusiness clusters, intermediation, transformative innovation, the sustainable development goals and the role of social movements in transformative innovation. I am actively involved in the Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium (http://tipconsortium.net/) with responsibility for Latin America where I led a series of projects through a three-year collaboration between SPRU and Colciencias, the national Colombian science and technology agency. I am currently working with a number of universities and national science and technology agencies in Latin America including CONACYT of Mexico on developing methodologies for transformative innovation in the region.”

18 October
Political Economies of Energy Transition: Wind and Solar Power in Brazil and South Africa
Kathryn Hochstetler(LSE)


Wind power has expanded quickly in Brazil, while solar power lags there and both wind and solar power have struggled to take off in South Africa. I argue that four different political economies - climate change, industrial policy, consumption and distribution, and siting - help account for energy transition. However, coalitions are being built on each of these at the same time, potentially interlocking to reinforce or counter-balance each other. The presentation will examine how these processes work in Brazil and South Africa to create distinct national political economies of energy transition.


Kathryn Hochstetler is Professor of International Development at the London School of Economics and Political Science. She has published widely on the environmental politics of emerging powers, especially Brazil. Her most recent book is the prize-winning Greening Brazil: Environmental Activism in State and Society, with Margaret Keck. She is completing a new book manuscript with the title of this talk.



25 October
Fostering regional diversification and transformation through public procurement
Elvira Uyarra(University of Manchester)


Innovation policy debates increasingly recognise societal challenges as drivers for innovation policy. Their traditional basis in market and system failure concepts, means innovation policy has paid too little attention to the content of innovation and has been ineffective in solving so-called ‘wicked’ problems such as poverty, ageing and climate change (Weber and Rohracher, 2012; Frenken, 2017). This has motivated recent views which advocate greater challenge orientation in innovation policy (Schot and Steinmuller, 2018; Mazzucato, 2013) and targeted policies to articulate societal needs at the demand side (Boon and Edler, 2018). However, the literature has remained rather silent about the role of regions in this ‘transformative’ or challenge-oriented innovation policy agenda (Coenen et al, 2015), and how they shape the context and outcomes of innovation policy realisation, including the complexity of multi-level governance and the importance of regional contextual factors enabling transformative change. Existing evolutionary approaches to regional growth tend to emphasise firm-led regional branching based on pre-exiting local assets. Insufficient attention has been paid to how strategic or deliberate state action can influence the conditions for new path creation and development. In particular, the importance of the public sector in shaping demand conditions for regional innovation is rarely acknowledged. Integrating insights from the literature on public procurement of innovation, evolutionary economic geography and ‘transformative’ innovation policy, the paper seeks to advance the conceptualization of the role of public demand in regional diversification and transformation. We draw from the case of Galicia (Spain) as illustration and to understand how institutional entrepreneurs in that region altered existing practices and enabled new institutions for industrial diversification and new path creation.


Elvira Uyarra is Reader in Innovation Policy and Management at Alliance Manchester Business School (University of Manchester) where she is also director of the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research and programme director of the MSc in Innovation Management and Entrepreneurship. Elvira is also adjunct professor at the Mohn Center of Innovation and Regional Development at the University of Western Norway and visiting fellow at the Centre for Innovation Management Research (CIMR) of Birkbeck, University of London. She teaches and conducts research on science and innovation policy and management and on regional innovation. She is fellow of the Regional Studies Association (RSA) and Chair of the North West if England branch of the RSA.



1 November
Entrepreneurial Intentions in University Young Scientists
Moreno Muffatto(University of Padova)


The main topic of the seminar is the Entrepreneurial Intention of Young Scientists within a University. PhD students and post docs represent an important part of the university population engaged in research and they may be interested, to some extent, in setting up a spin-off. To date, this part of the university population has been poorly observed from this point of view. A survey was carried out among PhD students and post docs within the University of Padova. The aim of the study was to examine the relationship between individual motivational characteristics and Scientists' Entrepreneurial Intentions (SEI), and to explore the mediating role of Third Mission Orientation (TMO). A paper has been submitted to a journal with the results of this first survey. After that we extended the survey to other Italian Universities. Now we are involving some European Universities in this project.


Bio unavailable



8 November
The MOTHS Project - a novel tracer study on the Mobility of the Highly Skilled
Michael Kahn (Stellenbosch University and University of the Western Cape)


"Large numbers of foreign African doctoral students gain their qualifications from South African universities, currently making up nearly a third of awards. Their career progression is thus an important question for STI policy, for their home countries, and the host South Africa, that struggles to produce and retain the highly skilled.  This contribution reports on a large-scale tracer study that uses unconventional techniques to identify and track these graduates.  For various reasons, South African university student records are closed to tracer studies, and even graduation lists are generally unavailable.  Accordingly, to generate a sample frame, resort was had to a painstaking search of university electronic dissertation repositories.  The resulting records were then sorted by nationality. Contact details were matched to individual records using various social media tools, and a personalized online questionnaire, based on the OECD/Eurostat Careers of Doctorate Holders project with additional free text items, was disseminated.  The Repository Method has demonstrated robustness, and may be more widely deployed by year, institution, target group, or even country to address a range of questions for policy. The MOTHS study offers new perspectives into a highly complex phenomenon, and a unique contribution to the literature. In particular, the project finds evidence of brain circulation, rather than brain drain, thereby placing South Africa among countries that contribute to human resource development beyond her borders. "


"Professor Michael Kahn is a policy analyst and evaluator of research and innovation. He has served as a ministerial advisor, government official, NGO director, academic and researcher, executive director of the HSRC, and international consultant.  He is an Extraordinary Professor of the University of the Western Cape and also Extraordinary Professor in the Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology at Stellenbosch University, and a member of its DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and Science Policy. His academic qualifications include a PhD in Theoretical Physics (Imperial College, London) and MA in Education Policy, Planning and Management (University of London). He is a skilled facilitator with strengths in policy, strategy, and planning, measurement, monitoring and evaluation, and consults to governments, multilateral agencies and the donor community.  Since 1990 he has contributed to South Africa’s innovation policy, co-authoring the ANC Policy on Science and Technology, working on the White Paper on Science and Technology, leading and designing the feasibility stage of the National Research and Technology Foresight study, participating in its ICT Panel, and writing the Foresight Synthesis Report.  In 2002 he founded the Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII) at the HSRC.  Other contributions include the Performance Measurement System for the Science Councils, a study on the mobility of the highly skilled - Flight of the Flamingoes, co-authorship of the 2012 Report of the Ministerial Review Committee on the STI Landscape, and the 2017 Performance Analysis of the SA innovation System for the National Advisory Council on Innovation.   Professor Kahn is an elected member of the Academy of Science of South Africa, was Vice Chairperson of the Board of the Agriculture Research Council, serves on the advisory board of the journal Research Policy, and is a trustee of the D G Murray Trust.   "

15 November
Citizen Social Science: Participatory research, collective experiments, civic actions and social change
Josep Perello (University of Barcelona)


Citizen science is broadly defined as a model of research where participation of the public is included. The notion of public is herein referred to the participants that are not experts, or at least non-professional scientists. However, can we also interpret the notion of “public” in different terms? And, if the answer is affirmative, in which ways the notion of “public” can be considered in social terms? Within the frame of the so-called citizen social science, we will try answer these couple of questions with our own specific citizen science experiences within the OpenSystems research group. These efforts not only amplify the social dimension of citizen science practices but also, being more specifically, enhance the importance of (1) making experiments public and of (2) placing experiments in public spaces. We will therefore propose to combine under the “social” tag of “citizen social science” not only consolidated social sciences set of methodologies placed out-of-the-lab context but also social issues or concerns, self-expressed by groups of citizens. Situating these self-expressed social concerns at the center of the research and in public has strong implications, in terms of legitimacy of the research and of giving voice to under-represented or vulnerable groups. Citizen social science appears to simultaneously be a powerful practice for freeing the voice of silenced collectives, to propose new policies harnessed with the participation of citizens and grounded scientific evidences, and last but not least, as a way to innovate and bring new science that deserved to be published in highest impact journals


Josep Perello holds a PhD in Physics and is an Associate Professor at the Universitat de Barcelona, where he founded OpenSystems, a research group that run scientific research based on citizen participation and artistic practices and under the broad label of Citizen Social Science. His primary focus is analyzing human behaviour in urban contexts. Aiming to collectively respond to specific social concerns, OpenSystems has run more than 15 public experiments with more than 2,500 participants. He has been coordinating Barcelona Citizen Science Office (until 2018, and founder in 2013), an inititative of the Barcelona City Council, that works as a community of practice of a large number of projects and implements specific programmes in civic centres, primary schools as well as high schools. For further info: http://www.ub.edu/opensystems


Paper: https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/63aj7

22 November
Investable Infrastructures? Financing the Offshore Wind Boom
Sarah Knuth (Durham University)


Today’s accelerating boom in offshore wind development, in the United Kingdom, United States and globally, poses a crucial unanswered question for scholars of infrastructure and its fast-changing political and economic geographies in the 21st century: as major infrastructure provisioning is increasingly shaped by the instruments and imperatives of transnational investors, what are the prospects for stable and sufficient development of offshore generation sites and industries? Emerging research on Anglo-American project finance, ‘tax-equity’ mining and other renewable energy investment practices has raised concerns about financing bottlenecks, high costs of capital for would-be wind developers and the affordability and grid-competitiveness of the energy they generate. Meanwhile, secular stagnation, ‘yield gaps’ and other systemic challenges facing institutional investors suggest the potential for underexamined risks and future volatility – a major concern for wind developers and programs reliant upon their funding. Key questions include: how do imperatives of ‘investability’ now shape what kinds of projects are built, where and for whom? What rents are extracted in the process? Conversely, what public or private financing alternatives are now emerging? Answering such questions is vital for the long-term sustainability of the wind sector and more broadly necessary in developing just infrastructures for a planet in flux.


Sarah Knuth is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography at Durham University. Her research investigates the contemporary intersection of neoliberal urban strategy, new ideas in green economic development and climate change resilience, and ongoing transformations in the global financial system. In places like the United States, making cities energy efficient, low carbon, and resilient means fundamentally reworking existing urban geographies and modes of city building… Sarah’s current project builds on past participatory research on US urban climate change mitigation planning and local resilience, and more particularly on dissertation research she conducted in the Department of Geography at the University of California, Berkeley

6 December
Societal impact revisited: societal connectedness of research from a bibliometric perspective provides new opportunities
Ed Noijons (Leiden University)


"The contribution describes an alternative way of evaluating research actors (institutes, groups but also journals ) considering a broader perspective of their impact or relevance to society. The Area-based connectedness (ABC) to society approach assesses research activities and may be related to their missions. An important assumption behind the approach is that the relevance or impact of research is not determined by the effort of one actor only but rather by the community working on a specific topic. The ABC approach assesses the performance of research actors, considering the characteristics of the research areas (or communities) in which they are working. Each actor’s paper inherits the characteristics of the area or community to which it belongs. These areas are defined by a publication-based classification, which identifies areas of research (or communities). The characteristics of areas currently relate to 5 dimensions of connectedness to society (news, policy, industrial R&D, technology and local interest) and are calculated by bibliometric indicators and social media metrics. I will discuss the approach in more detail and show the potential of the approach."


"Ed Noyons is a senior researcher at the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University. Since January 2019, he is deputy director of CWTS responsible for projects. Ed Noyons was born 10 June 1963 in Drunen (NL). He studied Dutch Language and Linguistics at the De Vooys Institute (University of Utrecht) and graduated in 1989 on Particles and Postpositions in Dutch. Since 1988 he works at the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University. In 1999 Ed received his PhD in Quantitative Studies of Science on a thesis ‘bibliometric mapping as a science policy and research management tool’. In the same year he became a research fellow at CWTS. He has published and co-authored many papers in peer-review international journals, delivers key-note lectures in international conferences and has been program chair in several scientometric conferences. Presently Ed’s main research interests involve structures, mapping of science and their use in science policy and research management, field delineation, and multi-dimensional, in particular societal impact of science. "


One coul refer to:

Noyons, E. (2018, September). Monitoring how science finds its way into society: measuring societal impact through area-based connectedness (ABC). Retrieved 14 November 2018, from CWTS website: https://www.cwts.nl:443/blog?article=n-r2u264&title=monitoring-how-science-finds-its-way-into-society-measuring-societal-impact-through-area-based-connectedness-abc
Noyons, E. (2019). Measuring Societal Impact Is as Complex as ABC. Journal of Data and Information Science, 4(3), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2019-0012

13 December
Changing consumption practices: reflections from the ENERGISE project
Audley Genus (Kingston University London)


The paper addresses the need for new insights in relation to the following areas: 1) improved understanding of the social and cultural influences on energy use in households; 2) examination of the potential of energy living labs to contribute to EU energy consumption goals; and 3) better informed EU and national policies for reducing household energy use. ENERGISE is a recently completed three-year (2016-2019) Horizon 2020-funded research project that aimed to address the foregoing. It took an approach informed by practice theory. The paper summarises findings from an analysis of 1067 European sustainable energy consumption initiatives reviewed by the project and reports on the methodology underpinning the conduct of 16 living labs implemented in eight European countries in 2018-19. The paper presents findings from the living labs and reflects upon the policy and research implications of the project


Audley has been a professor of innovation and technology management at Kingston since 2012. His research focuses on “innovation relating to renewable energy and the institutionalization of sustainable consumption practices, and sustainable and social entrepreneurship. (He is) a member of the Sustainable Consumption Research and Action Initiative (SCORAI) Europe consortium which was awarded 3.2 million euro for the three-year EU Horizon 2020 'ENERGISE' project which began in December, 2016. Other current projects include: 'Community Energy in England' and 'Knowledge Exchange for Entrepreneurship in Permaculture' (in collaboration with the Permaculture Association, funded by the Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, part-sponsored by the ESRC).


Paper: http://energise-project.eu/sites/default/files/content/ENERGISE_D6.6_031219_FINAL.pdf

Spring 2019
8 February
Rethinking Infrastructure and Innovation: A Service-Based Framework for Investigation and Action
Ralitsa Hiteva (SPRU)


Attempting to reconcile several years of project-driven research on different aspects of infrastructure governance and delivery, and move beyond a piecemeal understanding of infrastructure, this speculative and explorative presentation attempts to build a bigger picture of the relationship between infrastructure and innovation. This attempt is timely, if not a bit late, and challenges some of the assumptions in the UK Industrial Strategy about what could be achieved through infrastructure and innovation and how. As a way of rethinking both infrastructure and innovation, and the linkages that exist between them I put forward the concept of ‘infrastructure services’, as a vehicle for delivering increased quality of life and more equal and just distribution of benefits from infrastructure. This presentation is an invitation to think through together some of the shortcomings of politics-led infrastructure and innovation-driven solutions, and ask, what if we did things differently?


Dr. Ralitsa Hiteva is a Research Fellow in Digital Energy Services for the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions (CREDS) at SPRU, University of Sussex. Ralitsa’s work is focused on infrastructure governance and regulation; business model innovations; and low carbon transitions. Ralitsa co-convenes the MSc module Infrastructure, Innovation and Sustainability. Energy geographer by training, Ralitsa is interested in using interdisciplinary research methods in complementary ways and in research engagement with policy, industry and civil society.



Followed by a dicussion panel

Infrastructure value(s) and change

15 February
Statistical Significance of Differences among Research Universities at the Level of Nations and Worldwide
Loet Leydesdorff


More than 900 research universities in 54 countries were compared in the Leiden Rankings 2017 using excellence measures such as the top-10% most-frequently-cited papers, etc. Given the transparency of the methodology, this data can be used for testing statistically the differences among universities on their significance. Universities which are non-significantly different can be considered as homogeneous sets. These groups and intergroup relations can be visualized using network analysis. In addition to statistical significance, one can use effect sizes or overlapping stability intervals. Using these three measures, Leydesdorff, Bornmann, & Mingers (forthcoming) compared 47 research universities in the UK, 50 in Germany, 177 US universities, and 19 Brazilian ones. In all these cases, distinctions beyond three—high, middle, low—or sometimes four groups of universities were not meaningful. The divisions among groups of universities are not difficult to interpret (except for the case of using effect sizes). Given similar institutional incentives, isomorphism within each eco-system of universities should not be underestimated (Halffman & Leydesdorff, 2010). If we zoom in on individual universities, error can be large. In the case of the largest “loser” in these rankings (Carnegie Mellon University), for example, the model accounts for 72.7% of the decrease between 2013 and 2016, and the citation data themselves for 27.3% (Leydesdorff, Wouters, & Bornmann, 2016). Whereas scientometric indicators serve the function of “objectivation” of the quality of discourse, “reification” is error-prone: differences may be due to changes in the data, the models, or the modeling effects on data. 


Loet Leydesdorff (Ph.D. Sociology, M.A. Philosophy, and M.Sc. Biochemistry) is Professor emeritus at the Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) of the University of Amsterdam. He is Associate Faculty at the Science and Technology Policy Research Unit (SPRU) of the University of Sussex, Visiting Professor of the Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China (ISTIC) in Beijing, Guest Professor at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, and Visiting Fellow at the School of Management, Birkbeck, University of London. He has published extensively in systems theory, social network analysis, scientometrics, and the sociology of innovation (see at http://www.leydesdorff.net/list.htmor / http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en). With Henry Etzkowitz, he initiated a series of workshops, conferences, and special issues about the Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. He received the Derek de Solla Price Award for Scientometrics and Informetrics in 2003 and held “The City of Lausanne” Honor Chair at the School of Economics, Université de Lausanne, in 2005. In 2007, he was Vice-President of the 8thInternational Conference on Computing Anticipatory Systems (CASYS’07, Liège). Since 2014, lists him as a highly-cited author at https://clarivate.com/hcr/ http://www.leydesdorff.net / https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en .


Paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/asi.24130

Followed by a discussion panel

"Peer Review" versus "Metrics": Competing Models?

Frederique Bone, Ben Martin

22 February
Challenges and Constraints for Government Agencies Supporting Technology Based Start-ups: Some Reflections from South Africa
David Kaplan (University of Cape Town)


Support for technology based start-ups, often termed new technology based firms, (NTBs), initially seen solely as a concern for developed countries, is currently spreading very rapidly in developing countries. Institutions that support the development of the capacities of start-ups to innovate by providing funding are now widely accepted as integral to the National System of Innovation (NSI). However, in seeking to support such firms, governments need to exercise considerable caution. Firstly, there are very significant challenges in identifying and selecting the firms that require support in order to expand and develop. Secondly, there are issues as to the appropriate form of support. Finally, there is the question of governmental capacities: does government have the capacities to select the firms that require support and to determine the form of support that is appropriate? What institutional form is able to confront these challenges and to deliver support to firms effectively? The main focus of the paper is an examination of one possible institutional form for the support for start-ups: namely support provided directly by a governmental agency. The paper draws largely from the “lived experience” of one such institution – namely the Technology Innovation Agency (TIA) in South Africa – in order to highlight some of the challenges and constraints that developing countries are likely to face in attempting to develop start-ups by providing funding and support for innovation to such firms through the mechanism of a government agency. 


David Kaplan is an economist who has been at the University of Cape Town for more than 38 years. Prior to that he taught at the University of Massachusetts. He has undertaken work for inter alia the World Bank: the African Development Bank; the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation. He has held positions in government and a number of governmental agencies. Inter alia he was Chief economist of the Department of Trade and Industry; 2000-2003. Chief Economist (part-time), Department of Economic Development and Tourism, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, 2004-2011. He served on the Presidential Commission to Investigate the Development of a Comprehensive Labour Market Policy and on the National Advisory Council on Innovation (NACI) and has recently completed a four year term as a board member of the Technology Innovation Agency (TIA). His primary research and engagement in policy are in the broad areas of industrial policy, innovation and technological change.


Aveilable on request.

Followed by a discussion panel

Should governments be targeting individual start-ups for financial support? If so, how should this be done?

Blanche Ting, Martin Bell

1 March
The Crisis in Capitalism - The Degradation of the Socio-Political Regime
Raphie Kaplinsky (SPRU)


Capitalism is experiencing another in a series of crises which have occurred since the early 18th Century. Growth and productivity have slowed, investment has fallen and we stand on the precipice of another financial meltdown. Drawing on the socio-technical and the French Regulation School, this presentation focusses on the trajectory and degradation of the socio-political regime which accompanied the post-war growth surge. It shows how the systemic growth of inequality has resulted in a range of adverse developmental outcomes and a rise in status anxiety. The socio-political regime has also been fractured by austerity policies and focused attempts by the plutocracy to undermine liberal democracy. Coupled with the rise in cross-border migration (in part a consequence of the unequalising character of the atrophying techno-economic paradigm), we are witnessing the rise of populist politics. These associated developments in the socio-political regime threaten the sustainability of economic growth and societal capacities to meet major challenges, including those affecting environmental sustainability. The solution to these developments will be provided by the discussants and the audience…


Raphie Kaplinsky is an Honorary Professorial Fellow at SPRU, where he began his academic career in 1970. In the intervening years he worked for more than 35 years at the IDS, and for eight years at the Open University. His research and publications span a number of related themes including innovation, appropriate technology, industrialisation, globalisation, Global Value Chains, and the impact of China on the developing world. He is currently struggling to complete a book on The Crisis in Capitalism seen through the lens of the socio-techno-economic analytic framework.


Available on request.

Followed by a discussion panel

The Crisis in Capitalism

Carlota Perez, Tim Foxon

8 March
Experimental innovation policy
Albert Bravo-Biosca (Nesta)


Experimental approaches are increasingly being adopted across many policy fields, but innovation policy has been lagging. This paper reviews the case for policy experimentation in this field, describes the different types of experiments that can be undertaken, discusses some of the unique challenges to the use of experimental approaches in innovation policy, and summarizes some of the emerging lessons, with a focus on randomized experiments. The paper concludes describing how at the Innovation Growth Lab we’ve been working with governments across the OECD to help them overcome the barriers to policy experimentation in order to make their policies more impactful.


Albert Bravo-Biosca is Director of the Innovation Growth Lab, a global partnership based at Nesta that brings together governments, foundations and researchers to test new ways to accelerate innovation, entrepreneurship, and growth. His research has been at the intersection of innovation, growth and finance, looking at firm dynamics, intangible assets, venture capital, financial institutions and innovation, and policy evaluation. Albert holds a PhD from Harvard University. He is guest professor at the Barcelona Graduate School of Economics, and has also been visiting economist at the OECD and consultant for the World Bank.



Followed by a discussion panel

Can innovation policy be more experimental?

Paula Kivimaa, Simone Vannuccini

15 March
Circular Economy: Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Finance
Pelin Demirel (Imperial College London)


As the circular economy (CE) concept gains growing popularity among consumers and producers, small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) increasingly look for ways to reorganize their production and operations to integrate into the CE. This study examines the impact of (1) pro-CE eco-innovations and (2) external funding available for CE activities on the growth of European SMEs. Findings reveal that a significant threshold investment (i.e. higher than 10% of revenues) into pro-CE eco-innovations is required before SMEs can benefit from investing into CE. Moreover, the majority of pro-CE eco-innovations fail to boost the growth rates of SMEs, with the exception of investments into eco-design innovations. While traditional forms of debt and grant finance targeted to CE activities are found to have no or negative impact on the growth of SMEs, equity finance (i.e. angel and venture capital investments) is found to contribute positively to their growth. The study offers insights into the lower levels of SME engagement in the CE as well as policy implications for improving engagement.


Pelin Demirel is a Senior Lecturer in Innovation and Enterprise at Dyson School of Design Engineering, Imperial College London. Pelin’s research and teaching focus on innovation and entrepreneurship with a particular emphasis on environmental sustainability. Investigating the potential of innovations and entrepreneurship for a more sustainable and inclusive society motivates her most recent research projects. Pelin’s work has been published in various journals such as Small Business Economics, Research Policy, Industrial & Corporate Change and Ecological Economics. Pelin also serves an Associate Editor for European Management Review.


Available on request.

Followed by a discussion panel

Scaling the Circular Economy: How to effectively mobilise public and private finance for growth in the UK?

Alberto Marzucchi, Shova Thapa Karki

22 March
How Fast is This Novel Technology Going to Be a Hit? Antecedents Predicting Follow-On Inventions
Reinhilde Veugelers (KU Leuven)


Despite the high interest of scholars in identifying successful inventions, little attention has been devoted to investigate how (fast) the novel ideas embodied in original inventions are re-used in follow-on inventions. We overcome this limitation by empirically mapping and characterizing the trajectory of novel technologies’ re-use in follow-on inventions. Specifically, we consider the factors affecting the time needed for a novel technology to be legitimated as well as to reach its full technological impact. We analyze how these diffusion dynamics are affected by the antecedent characteristics of the novel technology. We characterize novel technologies as those that make new combinations with existing technological components and trace these new combinations in follow-on inventions. We find that novel technologies combining for the first time technological components which are similar and which are familiar to the inventors’ communityrequire a short time to be legitimated but show a low technological impact. In contrast, combining for the first time technological components with a science-based nature generates technologies with a long legitimation time but also high technological impact.


Prof Dr. Reinhilde Veugelers is a full professor at KULeuven (BE) at the Department of Management, Strategy and Innovation. She is a Senior Fellow at Bruegel since 2009. She is also a CEPR Research Fellow, a member of the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and of the Academia Europeana. From 2004-2008, she was on academic leave, as advisor at the European Commission (BEPA Bureau of European Policy Analysis). She served on the ERC Scientific Council from 2012-2018. She is a member of VARIO, the expert group advising the Flemish minister for Innovation. With her research concentrated in the fields of industrial organisation, international economics and strategy, innovation and science, she has authored numerous well cited publications in leading international journals. Specific recent topics include novelty in technology development, international technology transfers through MNEs, global innovation value chains, young innovative companies, innovation for climate change, industry science links and their impact on firm’s innovative productivity, evaluation of research and innovation policy, explaining scientific productivity, researchers’ international mobility, novel scientific research. Website: http://feb.kuleuven.be/reinhilde.veugelers and www.bruegel.org



Followed by a discussion panel

Unravelling the patterns of follow-on inventions

Tommaso, Hugo Confraria

29 March
Re-Making Quality in the Social Sciences: The Debate over Rigour and Relevance in the Modern Business School
Alan Irwin (Copenhagen Business School)


Against the background of previous discussions over the state of academic institutions and the specific operation of research evaluation and measurement systems, this article focuses on the relationship between academic quality and larger societal value within social scientific research. Adopting a perspective from Science and Technology Studies (STS), it specifically explores what has become known as the ‘rigour–relevance’ debate within business and management research and considers its larger implications. On the one hand, it is important to consider how terms such as ‘rigour’ and ‘relevance’ are specifically constructed and performed. On the other, this debate should be seen in the context of the modern business school as an ‘overloaded assemblage’ responsible to multiple audiences and for multiple purposes. In conclusion, it is argued that frameworks of ‘rigour’ and ‘relevance’ should be considered in terms not only of what they include but also omit – with notions of responsibility, public value, cognitive justice and public engagement providing alternative, but characteristically neglected, means of (re-)framing quality in this context.


Alan Irwin is a Professor in the Department of Organization at Copenhagen Business School (CBS). For over seven years, he was the Dean of Research at CBS. He has also been the CBS Acting President and Vice President. His PhD is from the University of Manchester and he has held previous appointments at Manchester, Brunel and Liverpool. His research background is in science and technology studies (STS) and sociology. Alan Irwin has published over a number of years on issues of scientific governance, science-public relations and research management. His most recent project focuses on research and innovation policy in Denmark, the United States and China.



Followed by a discussion panel

Debating rigour and relevance in the social sciences

Joshua Hutton, Kat Lovell

5 April
Innovation in Consumer Inclusion: Putting Patients at the Centre of Health System Strengthening in Zimbabwe
Julius Mugwagway (UCL)


Health systems across the world have for a long time operated as paternalistic institutions, driven by the privileged knowledge, skills, intellect and insights of trained clinicians, regulators and allied professionals in the drive towards good care experiences and outcomes. This deeply embedded and pervasive model of operation, derived from and based-on western allopathic health care models, has remained enduring and tenacious, to the extent that efforts across many countries to ‘put patients first’ have remained as mere aspirations with no programmes of work behind the rhetoric. This is highly unsurprising, as hegemonic models of practice do tend to proceed and survive by way of entrenching themselves and closing out spaces for alternatives.


Dr Julius Mugwagwa is a Lecturer in Innovation and Development at University College London, Department of Science, Technology Engineering and Public Policy (UCL-STEaPP) and Thematic Director, Global Health at UCL’s Global Governance Institute. A former Leverhulme Scholar, ESRC Research Fellow and Lecturer at the Innogen Institute and Open University, Julius has worked in biotech/biosafety and veterinary research, pharmaceutical R&D and quality assurance and harmonisation of medicines regulatory systems in Africa. He is a published author in the areas of health innovation, health system strengthening and biotech governance, buttressed by his research and teaching interests in the governance and development implications of technologies and innovations. He is author of two books ‘To harmonise or not to harmonise: the case of biosafety systems in southern Africa’ (2011); and ‘Harmonisation and Beyond: The case of Medicines Regulatory Systems in Africa (2019, forthcoming) and lead editor of the book ‘Public Policy and Health in Africa: Building the Case for a ‘Local Health’ Agenda’ (Routledge, ‘Health in Africa’ Series, 2019).

Followed by a discussion panel

Rethinking global and local health: boundary-spanning local organisations and the reshaping of structures and functions of health innovation systems

Gerry Bloom, Hugo Confraria

12 April
Subsidies for High-Tech Start-Ups: Does the Policy Instrument Matter
Hanna Hottenrott (Technical University of Munich)


New knowledge-intensive firms contribute to innovation, competition, and employment growth, but externalities like knowledge spillovers can prevent entrepreneurs from appropriating the full returns from their investments. In addition, uncertainty and information asymmetry pose challenges for financing. Public policy programs therefore aim to support start- ups. This study evaluates the effects of participation in such programs on the performance of start-ups in high-tech and knowledge-intensive sectors that were founded in Germany between 2005 and 2012. Distinguishing between grants and subsidized loans and after matching recipients and non-recipients based on a broad set of founder and company characteristics, we find that both grants and subsidized loans facilitate tangible investment, employment and revenue growth. Grants are, however, better suited to increasing R&D investments than loans are. Combined with subsidized loans, grants facilitate turning research results into marketable products by means of investments in tangible assets. Start-ups that participate in both types of programs outperform grant-only recipients in terms of innovation performance, employment and future revenues. Finally, program participation increases the likelihood of receiving private venture capital.


Hanna Hottenrott is assistant professor for the Economics of Innovation in the Department of Economics & Policy of the Technical University of Munich’s (TUM) School of Management. Her research focuses on industrial organization, innovation policy, and the economics of technological change. Much of her work deals with analyses of innovation strategies, particularly the financing of R&D, and innovation policy designed to support innovation activities in the private sector. Her work has been published in the Review of Economics and Statistics, the Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, the International Journal of Industrial Organization, Research Policy, among other journals. Hanna Hottenrott worked as a data scientist at the Centre for Research & Development Monitoring at K.U. Leuven and is research associate at the Department of Economics of Innovation and Industrial Dynamics at the Centre for European Economic Research. Prior to joining the TUM, she was an assistant professor at the Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE) at the University of Düsseldorf. She holds a PhD in applied economics from K.U. Leuven (Belgium) and an advanced degree in economics at the University of Heidelberg.




Followed by a discussion panel

The usefulness of public support for start-ups

Alberto Marzucchi, Josh Siepel

3 May
Manufacturing Matters - The Myth of the Post-Industrial Knowledge Economy
Ha-Joon Chang (University of Cambridge)


In this talk, Chang takes on the increasingly popular view that we now live in the post-industrial knowledge economy, in which the engine of growth is knowledge-intensive services and manufacturing is not important any more. The talk will begin by explaining why the relatively decline of manufacturing, or de-industrialisation, happens and what kinds of negative consequences it may have on a country’s productivity growth and balance of payments. After this, Chang will make a number of points criticising the ‘post-industrial knowledge economy’ discourse. First, we have always lived in a knowledge economy. Second, many knowledge-intensive services look ‘new’ only because they have been ‘spun off’ or ‘outsourced’ from the manufacturing firms that used to produce them. Third, we cannot separate the manufacturing sector from the ‘knowledge’ sector, as it is the key source of new productive knowledge.Fourth, most service activities that have high rates of productivity are producer services for the manufacturing sector and therefore can be sustained without a successful manufacturing sector in the long run. Finally, it debunks some myths about the supposed service-based success stories of Switzerland, Singapore, and (more recently) India.


Ha-Joon Chang teaches economics at the University of Cambridge and is currently the Director of the Centre of Development Studies. In addition to numerous journal articles and book chapters, he has published 16 authored books (five co-authored) and 10 edited books. His main books include The Political Economy of Industrial Policy, Kicking Away the Ladder, Bad Samaritans, 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism, and Economics: The User’s Guide. By the end of 2018, his writings will have been translated and published in 41 languages and 44 countries. Worldwide, his books have sold around 2 million copies. He is the winner of the 2003 Gunnar Myrdal Prize and the 2005 Wassily Leontief Prize.

Followed by a discussion panel

Manufacturing Matters

Bernardo Caldarola, Paul Nightingale

10 May
How Resilience Discourses Shape Cities: the Case of Resilient Rotterdam
Anique Hommels (Maastricht University)


In this lecture, I will analyse a case of a European “resilient city” in development to see how resilience discourses shape cities. The Dutch city of Rotterdam, a member of the world-wide 100 Resilient Cities initiative of the Rockefeller Foundation, will be studied as an example of the attempted embedding of particular meanings of resilience. Rotterdam joined the 100 Resilient Cities initiative in 2013 and launched its Resilient Rotterdam strategy in the spring of 2016. In this seminar I will analyze this strategy in detail, discuss the notions of resilience underlying it, and use STS literature to critically reflect on some of the tensions and challenges involved in urban resilience discourses and their application. To better grasp the way resilience has been conceptualized in the context of cities and urban planning, I will first discuss the scholarly debate on urban resilience in more detail. Then, I will analyze the specific way in which the 100 Resilient Cities initiative has interpreted urban resilience and how the city of Rotterdam appropriated this discourse in its resilience strategy. I will conclude this presentation by discussing some of the tensions and challenges of Rotterdam’s resilience thinking, taking inspiration from STS literature on cities, disasters and vulnerability.


Anique Hommels is Associate Professor at the department of Technology and Society studies of Maastricht University in the Netherlands. She studied the role of obduracy of sociotechnology in cities (see her book Unbuilding Cities, 2005, MIT Press) and more recently, worked on vulnerability in technological cultures (see the volume she co-edited with Wiebe Bijker and Jessica Mesman, Vulnerability in Technological Cultures, 2014, MIT Press). Her current research focuses on resilience and innovation in pre- and post-disaster cities.

Followed by a discussion panel

(urban) resilience in theory and practice

Kat Lovell, Rachael Durrant

17 May
Navigating Sustainable Energy Narratives in Africa
Yacob Mulugetta (UCL)


Africa is in the midst of an energy and development conversation. Debates are taking place across Africa on various ‘energy futures’ with a view to unlock human and financial resources while responding to major national and global challenges such as climate change. How ideas around the ‘energy challenge’ play out is highly dependent on the national and supra-national political context and dynamics, and is thus deeply influenced by competing narratives.  For example, different actors bring to the stage their particular conceptions of what constitutes ‘energy access’, and how the competing accounts interact to shape specific interventions and policies. Currently top-down approaches dominate the ‘solution space’ where investment imperatives often take a narrow view, giving more weight to return on investment and affordability and less to goals of social inclusiveness and equity. This raises a number of questions: whose energy security and access predominates?  How are investment decisions reached and who decides? Whose voice is accommodated in this discussion, especially the poorest? And how should resources be governed?  The presentation will explore in some depth the dominant narratives that are shaping the sustainable energy landscape across Africa, how these narratives are constructed and sustained, and discuss ways to open new energy dialogues that reflect the interests and priorities of a broader spectrum of people and communities.


Yacob Mulugetta is a Professor of Energy and Development Policy at the University College London; and held an academic post at the Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, UK. He is a founding member of the African Climate Policy Centre (ACPC) at the UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) based in Ethiopia where he worked as Senior Climate & Energy Specialist (2010-2013). He has 25 years of research, teaching and advisory experience specialising on the links between energy infrastructure provision and human welfare. His research is focused on three interconnected areas: energy systems and development; energy systems and climate change; and political economy of low carbon development. He served as a Coordinating Lead Author of the Energy Systems chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report (Working Group III on Mitigation), lead author in the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5oC, and currently lead author in the IPCC 6th Assessment Report. Yacob Mulugetta is a Fellow of the African Academy of Sciences (AAS).

Followed by a discussion panel

Imagining energy futures in Africa

Chantal Naidoo, Tim Foxon

24 May
Work in the Digital Age
Jacqueline O'Reilly (University of Sussex Business School)


Drawing on evidence from a recently published edited collection I focus on the very different experiences of work in the digital age. This contextualises debates on the Fourth Industrial Revolution from a comparative and historical perspective alongside the emergence of digital work through automation and platform business models. It raises questions as to how the differential development between countries can be explained by conventional comparative frameworks, and focuses on what types of theories and research methods we need to develop for future research in this area that can be used to inform policy debates.


Professor Jacqueline O’Reilly is Professor of Comparative Human Resource Management at the University of Sussex Business School. She will be establishing a new research centre in October 2019 on Digital Futures at Work jointly led with the Leeds University Business School and in collaboration with the Universities of Aberdeen, Cambridge, Manchester and Monash. She was coordinator of a EU FP7 funded large-scale research project STYLE: Strategic Transitions for Youth Labour in Europe (www.style-research.eu) and the UK lead on an EU Horizon 2020 project NEGOTIATE (www.negotiate-research.eu) examining the consequences of early career insecurity. Her research focuses on comparative studies of the digital transformation of work and international comparisons of gender and labour market transitions across the life cycle for youth, parents and older workers. The ESRC, the Leverhulme Trust, the European Commission, the European Science Foundation and Santander Bank have funded her research. She completed her doctorate at Nuffield College, University of Oxford on an Anglo-French comparison of employment practices in the banking sector. She worked for ten years at the Social Science Research Centre Berlin (WZB), Germany, at Sciences Politiques in Paris, and at London, Manchester and Brighton Universities in the UK. In 2000 she was awarded a Jean Monnet Research Fellowship at the European University Institute in Florence. She has been consulted by HM Treasury, Full Employment Team; is an Evaluation Rapporteur for the European Commission Horizon 2020 research programme; was invited as an advisor to the ILO Work4Youth programme funded by The MasterCard Foundation; and has been an evaluator for the German Excellence Initiative of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (€51 million investment).



Followed by a discussion panel

Research questions and conceptual frameworks for examining work in the digital age: how do these inform the policy agenda?

Hugo Confraria, Sebastiano Cattaruzzo

Autumn 2018
28 September
Organised Crime and Technology 
Alessandro Flamini (University of Pavia)


This paper investigates the relation between the presence of organized crime and the technology level in north Italy. Our analysis proposes two provincial indexes. The first portrays technology at a fine-grained industrial sector level. The second describes mafia-type organizations in line with the investigation approach currently used by Italian National Antimafia Directorate (DNA) and Antimafia District Directorates (DDAs). With these indexes, we provide empirical evidence that in north Italy, the larger the presence of organized crime, the less innovation and the technological level of the industrial fabric. Our reading of this finding is that without organized crime, Nature selects agents according to their capacity to innovate. Instead, with organized crime, agents can choose an alternative strategy: relate with organized crime, which hinders innovation. Modelling the interaction innovation - relation with mafias by evolutionary game theory, we show that the presence of organized crime, through natural selection, leads to low levels of technology. Our model also shows how to use sanctions and indemnities to address the problem.


Alessandro Flamini is Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Pavia. He has a Ph.D. in Economics from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva.
Before joining the University of Pavia he was tenured Lecturer at University of Sheffield, UK for the period 2006-2011. His short-term and visiting positions include periods at Harvard University, EIEF, Hong Kong Monetary Authority, New Zealand Reserve Bank, and Princeton University. Alessandro’s current research interests are in economics of crime, and monetary and financial economics, with a special focus on organized crime and policies for macro and financial stability.



Followed by a dicussion panel

Organised Crime and Society in an Evolutionary Perspective

Diego de la Fuente, Bernardo Caldarola

5 October
The history of fossil fuel consumption: reasons to focus on technological and social systems
Simon Pirani (University of Oxford)


The talk proposes ways of studying fossil fuel consumption through the lens of global history. Study of technological systems, the social and economic systems in which they are embedded, and the interactions between these, can yield insights. These types of history may help us to understand, first, the context for the political history of the international climate negotiations, and, second, the negotiations’ disastrous failure to achieve their central aim, i.e. to reverse fossil fuel consumption growth. The paper will also reflect on the political significance of different methods of quantitative research of fuel consumption, and point to important turning-points in consumption growth since the mid 20th century. The paper is based on research for a recently published book (Burning Up: A Global History of Fossil Fuel Consumption, by Simon Pirani (Pluto, August 2018))


Simon Pirani is author of Burning Up: A Global History of Fossil Fuel Consumption, published by Pluto Press in August 2018. He is Senior Visiting Research Fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, where he has worked since 2007, researching, and publishing widely on, natural gas markets in Russia, Ukraine and the Caspian region. He has previously published books on Russian history, and written about the Russian and Ukrainian economies as a journalist.


Paper- The history of fossil fuel consumption: reasons to focus on technological and social systems [PDF 119.32KB]

Background material 1- https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745335612/burning-up/

Background material 2- http://simonpirani.blogspot.com/p/global-history-of-fossil-fuel.html

Followed by a discussion panel

Philip Johnstone, Tim Foxon

12 October
Absorptive Capacity in A Two-Sector Neo-Schumpeterian Model: A New Role for Innovation Policy
Isabel Almudi (University of Zaragoza)


We propose a new co-evolutionary computational two-sector approach to the design of national innovation policy that recognizes the importance of inter-sectoral absorptive capacity constraints in innovation linkages between sectors in an economy. We show how the innovative capacity of an upstream producer sector can be constrained by the absorptive capacity of the downstream-user sector. This suggests that the low productivity performance of modern innovation policy might in part be understood as a consequence of sectorally unbalanced knowledge evolution, where the problem lies in underinvestment in innovative capabilities in the downstream sector. Our computational two-sector model suggests an important new role for innovation policy to create a balanced, sectorally- targeted approach.


Isabel Almudi is Associate Professor at the Department of Economic Analysis, University of Zaragoza (Spain). She has been Visiting Fellow at the European University Institute (Florence), Columbia University (New York) and RMIT-Melbourne (Australia). Her research fields are Evolutionary Economics, Innovation Studies, Environmental Economics and Dynamic Systems. She has published her work in Industrial and Corporate Change, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Metroeconomica, Journal of Economic Issues, International Journal of Ecological Economics & Statistics, Journal of Bioeconomics and Economics of Innovation and New Technology.



Followed by a discussion panel

How can modelling help in designing innovation policies?

Ed Steinmueller, Bernardo Caldarola

19 October
Firms’ Innovation and Exit Routes During The Crisis
Alex Coad with Elena Cefis and Alessandro Lucini Paioni (CENTRUM Cátolica Graduate Business School)


The relationship between innovation and survival is investigated, disaggregating by four types of innovation activities (product, process, organizational and marketing innovations) and three exit routes (failure, closure, M&A), during the great recession of 2008. In particular, we contribute new graphical and regression techniques - landmark analysis - to include time-varying covariates in survival models with competing exit routes. In our representative sample of Dutch firms (obtained merging monthly register data with biennial innovation surveys, for 2006-2015) innovation reduces the probability of M&A. Product and process innovations also reduce the probability of closure. Amidst the recession, organizational innovations are associated with higher closure rates.


Alex Coad is Professor at CENTRUM-Católica Graduate Business School (Lima, Peru), and is interested in the areas of firm-level R&D investment, firm performance, entrepreneurship, strategy, and innovation policy. Alex has published over 60 articles in international peer-reviewed journals, such as Economica, Journal of Business Venturing, Research Policy, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, and Economics Letters. According to google-scholar, Alex has over 5000 citations and an H-index of 34. Alex is Editor at the journals 'Research Policy' (Financial Times Top 50 list of journals for Business Schools) and 'Small Business Economics', and Associate Editor for 'Industrial and Corporate Change' (Oxford University Press). Previously Alex obtained a PhD from Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne and the Sant'Anna School, Pisa, Italy, and held academic positions at the Max Planck Institute (Jena, DE), Aalborg University (Denmark), and SPRU (Univ. Sussex, UK), before being an Economic Analyst at the European Commission (IRI group, JRC-IPTS, Sevilla). In December 2016, Alex received the 2016 Nelson Prize at University of California Berkeley.

Followed by a discussion panel

The panel title is 'Innovation and Firm Performance in Times of Crisis'. 

26 October
Can Scientists Be Trusted with planet Earth?
Mark Burgman (Imperial College London) 


Environmental decisions depend on judgements when data are scarce, knowledge is incomplete and decisions are imminent. Decision makers rely on expert advice to fill the gaps. Yet, recent evidence suggests that in many circumstances, experts have a poor idea of the limits of their knowledge and mistake status for knowledge in others. This presentation outlines some of these expert frailties, and how to remedy them. It outlines recent steps taken by the IUCN and others to better quantify risk. It also outlines the relevance of this work for geopolitical judgements and national security.


Mark Burgman is Director of the Centre for Environmental Policy (CEP) at Imperial College London and Editor-in-Chief of the journal Conservation Biology. Previously, he was Head of the Department of BioSciences at the University of Melbourne, Australia and Director of the Centre of Excellent for Biosecurity Risk Analysis. He works on expert judgement, environmental modelling and risk analysis. He has written models for dynamic systems and uncertainty propagation in a range of settings including threatened species management, managing the environmental impacts of electrical power and landscape planning. He received a BSc from the University of New South Wales (1977), an MSc from Macquarie University, Sydney (1981), and a PhD from the State University of New York at Stonybrook (1987). He worked as a consultant research scientist in Australia, the United States and Switzerland during the 1980’s before joining the University of Melbourne in 1990. He joined CEP in February, 2017. He has published over two hundred and fifty refereed papers and book chapters and seven authored books. He was elected to the Australian Academy of Science in 2006.


Paper 1: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0022998
Paper 2: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00165.x
Paper 3: https://www.nature.com/news/policy-advice-use-experts-wisely-1.18539

Followed by a discussion panel

The panel title is 'Which experts should you trust?' and the panelists are Josh Hutton and Divya Sharma. 

2 November
Open Branding: Managing the Unsanctioned Use of Brand-related Intellectual Property
Ian McCarthy (Simon Fraser University)


Research on user and open innovation often focuses on the innovation benefits these phenomena offer to firms. However, it also has important brand management implications when consumers get creative with brand-related intellectual property (IP) i.e., copyright and trademarks. Focusing on one type of user innovator, the creative consumer, I introduce a number of examples of how this activity involves different potential infringements of brand-related IP and associated value or harm to a firm’s brand. I present a process framework that considers, from a brand management perspective, the extent to which IP rights can and should be applied to stop or control the user innovation activity. This framework is used to define, describe and offer predictions concerning the concept of ‘open branding’, which is process of identifying, interpreting and responding to the activities of creative consumers whose acts involve unauthorised use of brand related IP. A series of possible research questions are then outlined, along with next steps in the development of this line of enquiry.


Ian is a Professor of Technology and Operations Management, and the Director of the CPA Innovation Centre at the Beedie School of Business. He received his Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering from University of Sheffield, was a faculty member at the universities of Sheffield and Warwick. In 2003, he joined Simon Fraser University as a Canada Research Chair, and in 2010 was a Fulbright Scholar at the Georgia Institute of Technology. His research and teaching focus on operations management, innovation management, change management and entrepreneurship. His work has been published in a range of journals, including Academy of Management Review, Industry and Corporate Change, California Management Review, Technovation, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, R&D Management, Business Horizons and OMEGA. His research has also featured in the Economist, the Globe and Mail, Business Insider and other media outlets.


Background material 1: https://cmr.berkeley.edu/search/articleDetail.aspx?article=5796
Background material 2: https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1240068

Followed by a discussion panel

Youngha Chang and Vasilis Gkogkidis

9 November
Innovation, Employment and Inequality. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose?
Maria Savona (SPRU)


The presentation is based on the results of the two main outputs of our ESRC TEMPIS grant, based on joint work with Tommaso Ciarli, Alberto Marzucchi, and Edgar Salgado Chavez. In (Ciarli et al. 2018) we look at the effect of R&D investments on employment in the UK local labour markets and find that, on balance, innovation has had little impact on employment rates but plays an important part in labour composition, and might exacerbate spatial polarization along different dimensions. When we distinguish between areas that, prior to 2001, had a higher percentage of workers employed in routine occupations (we call them HRAs)and areas that had a lower percentage of workers employed in routine occupations (LRAs) we found that, overall, R&D changes the sector, type and skill composition of employment, and might increase employment differences between LRAs and HRAs areas. In LRAs, R&D growth induces a decrease in employment, but an increase in the proportion of more highly-educated workers, of those in paid employment, as well as those in the manufacturing industry vs non-tradeable sectors. In HRAs, instead, R&D leads to an increase in employment, but mainly in non-tradable services, rather than in manufacturing (which by contrast has reduced) and especially amongst those with lower levels of education. Interestingly, the employment created in HRAs can be mainly attributed to an increase in self-employment, particularly within the age cohort 25-34 and 35-64. The youngest cohort (16-24) is the most negatively affected by innovation in HRAs: the loss of waged employment does not appear to lead to an increase in self-employment.
We also looked at the effects of R&D on individual wages. In Ciarli et al. (2018b) we find that R&D leads to systematic wage increases for workers employed in more innovative firms. However, the R&D-led wage gains are not equally distributed among workers. Those in top-earning occupations benefit comparatively more from R&D spending than their lower-earning colleagues. Also, those in highly-routinised occupations benefit comparatively less than those in less-routinised jobs. Crucially, we find that R&D investments also significantly increase the gender pay gap: men gain twice as much from an increase in R&D investments with respect to women in the same occupation.


Maria Savona is Professor of Innovation and Evolutionary Economics at SPRU, Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex, UK. She was previously at the University of Cambridge, UK, University of Strasbourg and Lille 1, France. Her main research interests are on the impact of innovation on employment and wages; the economics and policy of innovation in services; the structural change of the sectoral composition of economies, and particularly on the international fragmentation of production involving services, and their effects on development; the effect of barriers to innovation. She has led and co-led grants funded by: the JRF on The Local Distribution of Productivity Gains: Heterogenous effects; the ESRC on Technical change, employment & inequality. A spatial analysis of households & plant data; the H2020 on Innovation-Fuelled, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth; the IDRC on Pathways of Structural Change and Inclusive Development. She has advised and produced reports for the IADB; ECLAC; UN ESCAP; OECD; NESTA; BEIS, DETI. She is an Editor for Research Policy; Associate Editor for the Journal of Evolutionary Economics; Economia Politica; The Eurasian Business Review. She is an Academic Member of the ESRC Peer Review College and served in evaluation panels for the European Commission, the National Research Councils of Canada, Finland, Luxembourg, Italy, Norway, US. She is currently a member of the High Level Expert Group on the Impact of Digital Transformation on EU Labour Markets for the European Commission (https://bit.ly/2DhpC8G). Details on her publications are on her website: Maria Savona at SPRU https://bit.ly/2q4S97Y
E.: M.Savona@sussex.ac.uk; T.: @maria_savona



Followed by a discussion panel

'Innovation, Employment and Inequality. How to tackle the policy conundrum?'

Matias Ramirez, Mattia Di Ubaldo

16 November
Deep Learning, Deep Change? Mapping the Development of the Artificial Intelligence General Purpose Technology
Juan Mateos-Garcia (Nesta)


General Purpose Technologies (GPTs) that can be applied in many industries are an important driver of economic growth and national and regional competitiveness. In spite of this, the geography of their development and diffusion has not received significant attention in the literature. We address this with an analysis of Deep Learning (DL), a core technique in Artificial Intelligence (AI) increasingly being recognized as the latest GPT. We identify DL papers in a novel dataset from ArXiv, a popular preprints website, and use CrunchBase, a technology business directory to measure industrial capabilities related to it. After showing that DL conforms with the definition of a GPT, having experienced rapid growth and diffusion into new fields where it has generated an impact, we describe changes in its geography. Our analysis shows China's rise in AI rankings and relative decline in several European countries. We also find that initial volatility in the geography of DL has been followed by consolidation, suggesting that the window of opportunity for new entrants might be closing down as new DL research hubs become dominant. Finally, we study the regional drivers of DL clustering. We find that competitive DL clusters tend to be based in regions combining research and industrial activities related to it. This could be because GPT developers and adopters located close to each other can collaborate and share knowledge more easily, thus overcoming coordination failures in GPT deployment. Our analysis also reveals a Chinese comparative advantage in DL after we control for other explanatory factors, perhaps underscoring the importance of access to data and supportive policies for the successful development of this complex, `omni-use' technology.


Juan Mateos-Garcia is Director of Innovation Mapping at Nesta, where he leads a research and development team using new data sources and data science methods to inform Research and Innovation policy. Juan is an Economist with an MSc in Science and Technology Policy from SPRU.



Followed by a discussion panel

An STI policy and research agenda for AI

Simone Vannuccini and Tommaso Ciarli

23 November
Are Governments Good Venture Capitalists? 
Carlo Menon (OECD)


This paper presents new evidence on government Venture Capital across countries using Crunchbase, a unique dataset on innovative companies and their investors. The main findings show that start-ups receiving funding from public investors are significantly different from those receiving private funding: in particular, their founders are older, and are more likely to have experience in research. Public investors also target companies in sectors where time to exit is longer. Furthermore, this paper shows that firms receiving a first round of purely public VC are less likely to receive a second round of VC (whether private or public) than firms receiving a first round of purely private VC. However, the form of investment which is most likely to be followed by financing in subsequent rounds is that of a syndicate composed of both public and private investors. Subsequently, the analysis characterizes the transition between these different types of investments and shows that the type of investors in the first and second rounds are highly correlated (i.e. the rate of transition between public, private or mixed investors is low). Because of that, the likelihood of receiving a second round of financing from a private VC is significantly lower for start-ups backed by public or mixed VC in the earlier round. While these new findings add nuance to the existing literature and put into perspective the effectiveness of mixed VC in leading to second round of investment, this report also shows that mixed VC is associated with higher probability of successful exit than private (and public) VC.


Carlo Menon is an Economist within the Structural Policy Division of the Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation of the OECD since 2011. In this capacity, Carlo contributes to evidence-based policy analysis on innovative entrepreneurship, structural change, and policy evaluation. He is also an affiliate with the Spatial Economic Research Centre at the London School of Economics and Political Science (UK). Before joining the OECD, he was a Junior Economist at the Bank of Italy. His research is being published in recognized academic journals, including Economic Policy, Journal of Economic Geography, World Bank Economic Review, and the Journal of Banking & Finance. Carlo holds a PhD from the London School of Economics and Political Science, UK (2009), and a M.Res. (2005) and a B.Sc. (2003) in Economics from the University of Venice, Italy.

Followed by a discussion panel

'Public vs private innovation and entrepreneurship'

Michael Hopkins, Hugo Confraria, and Josh Sieple

30 November
Public Engagement with Climate Change and Low-carbon Lifestyles
Lorraine Whitmarsh (University of Cardiff)


There is now widespread international acceptance that climate change poses a serious threat to human wellbeing and ecological stability. Meeting the 2oC (and aspirational 1.5oC) UN target will require a transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient society. Such a transition is also required at the level of individual lifestyles. But policies to achieve societal and behavioural change have met with limited success. There is a critical need to move beyond traditional (e.g., individualistic) models of pro-environmental behaviour change towards approaches that achieve more ambitious lifestyle change commensurate with the scale of the climate challenge. At the same time, there is a need to engage the public in deliberation about how to tackle climate change and address other societal goals. This presentation will outline evidence on public perceptions of climate change, and what shapes these. It will then discuss examples from recent experimental work on how climate change communication can be improved, by targeting audience values and perceptions of fairness. Moving beyond communication, I will then discuss ongoing work on how to change lifestyles, through the notion of ‘behavioural spillover’ and targeting interventions to moments of change.


Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh is an environmental psychologist, specialising in perceptions and behaviour in relation to climate change, energy and transport, based in the School of Psychology at Cardiff University. She is also partner coordinator for the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. She regularly advises governmental and other organisations on environmental behaviour change and communications. Her research projects have included studies of energy efficiency behaviours, electric vehicle use, carrier bag reuse, perceptions of smart homes and smart grids, and responses to climate change.


Background material presentation- http://orca.cf.ac.uk/97309/1/Centre%20right%20narratives%20FINAL.pdf

Background material roundtable - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1068/a43359?casa_token=iArkELX3zDsAAAAA%3ACk7kTyfqCPToAzvlVmOD7f5DLTt6fGud7Z59aDHb8R4wPzAgigR7Afx7_dVimYMLXOiRmJgxFyl7

Followed by a discussion panel

'What is the role of individuals in tackling climate change?'

Barbara van Dyck and Ralitsa hiteva

7 December
Digital social innovations: exploring an emerging field
Muge Ozman (Institut Mines Télécom)


The rapid rise of digital platforms that bring innovative solutions to social and environmental problems reflect changes in the ways that civic engagement is exercised in many parts of the world. These digital social innovations span domains like civic crowdfunding, governance and political participation, neighbourhood information systems, crowd science, geographic information systems, and recycling platforms among others. DSIs are diverse in terms of their sectors, beneficiary populations, the nature of innovators, and organisational forms. During the recent years, although DSI have attracted public attention in Europe and specialised organisations and supportive institutions have emerged, the field remains under investigated by academic research. This prevents a systematic analysis of the extent to which DSIs effectively contribute to more sustainable societies. In this paper we discuss various definitions of DSI, describe this ecosystem in Europe, present illustrative examples, and distinguish between four types with respect to their scale of operations (local versus global) and the nature of networks between users they help develop (dense clusters based on shared interests, versus loose and distributed networks). By drawing upon different cases in each type, we present a theoretical lens to analyse their implications, which is based on viewing markets as calculative collective devices (Callon and Muniesa, 2005). In light of this perspective, we discuss the issues at stake in their algorithms that might counteract their social goals, alternative modes of scaling, and the conditions to which each type is potentially better suited in contributing to sustainability. We also discuss implications for future policy and management.


Muge Ozman is currently Professor of Management in Institut Mines Telecom Business School. She obtained her PhD degree from Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT) and held academic positions in Maastricht University and Middle East Technical University. She carried out post-doc studies in University of Strasbourg and Aix Marseille University. She participated in major projects on innovation funded by the European Union and Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR). Her research focuses on innovation networks, a field of research at the intersection of social network theory and innovation studies, as well as digital social innovations. She is the author of the book Strategic Management of Innovation Networks recently published from Cambridge University Press.


Background material: https://digitalsocinno.wp.imt.fr
Background material: https://theconversation.com/can-digital-social-innovations-tackle-big-challenges-93515
Paper: available on request

Followed by a discussion panel

Aslı Ates, Rachael Durrant, Adrian Smith

Spring 2018
9 February
The Innovation Paradox: Developing-Country Capabilities and the Unrealized Promise of Technological Catch-Up
Xavi Cirera (The World Bank)


Since Schumpeter, economists have argued that vast productivity gains can be achieved by investing in innovation and technological catch-up. Yet, as this volume documents, developing country firms and governments invest little to realize this potential, which dwarfs international aid flows. Using new data and original analytics, the authors uncover the key to this innovation paradox in the lack of complementary physical and human capital factors, particularly firm managerial capabilities, that are needed to reap the returns to innovation investments.

Hence, countries need to rebalance policy away from R&D-centered initiatives – which are likely to fail in the absence of sophisticated private sector partners – toward building firm capabilities, and embrace an expanded concept of the National Innovation System that incorporates a broader range of market and systemic failures.

The authors offer guidance on how to navigate the resulting innovation policy dilemma: as the need to redress these additional failures increases with distance from the frontier, government capabilities to formulate and implement the policy mix become weaker. This book is the first volume of the World Bank Productivity Project, which seeks to bring frontier thinking on the measurement and determinants of productivity to global policy makers.


Xavi Cirera is a Senior Economist in the Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation (FCI) Global Practice at the World Bank. He has more than 15 years’ experience working in different microeconomic areas of development; including innovation and entrepreneurship policies, productivity, firm level dynamics and trade policy.

He holds a PhD in Economics from the University of Sussex and prior to joining the World Bank he was a Research Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. His most recent research work focuses on the measurement of firm-level innovation, the determinants and impacts of innovation and the relationship between misallocation, productivity and firm-growth.

His most recent policy work centers around the evaluation of innovation and entrepreneurship policies, leading the development of the public Expenditure Reviews in Science, Technology and Innovation implemented in Colombia, Chile and the Ukraine.

He is the co-author of the World Bank report The Innovation Paradox: Developing-Country Capabilities and the Unrealized Promise of Technological Catch-Up and the forthcoming handbook Instruments to Support Business Innovation. A Guide for Policymakers and Practitioners.



Followed by a dicussion panel

Joanna Chataway; Michael Lipton; Raphie Kaplinsky

2 March
US Export Controls as Instruments to Regulate Knowledge Acquisition in a Globalizing Economy
John Krige (Georgia Institute of Technology)


Export controls on the sharing of knowledge with foreign nationals in the US and abroad have become increasingly wide in scope, invasive and nationalistic in the global space of knowledge production and circulation. The reach of the regulatory National Security State has expanded to embrace the education and training of scientists, engineers and project managers at both academic and corporate sites.

Heavy fines and imprisonment have been imposed on US entities and individuals who violate the law that is subject to constant (re)negotiation between diverse stakeholders that strive to balance academic freedom and access to markets with threats to American national economic and military security.

This paper traces the historical arc of these developments from the late 1970s to the early 2000s. It highlights key moments when the sharing of sensitive but unclassified knowledge and know-how with foreign nationals was a major pre-occupation of the National Security State as it sought to mould an increasingly restrictive export control regime to deal with threats from, first, the Soviet Union and then the Peoples Republic of China.


John Krige has a PhD in physical chemistry from the University of Pretoria (South Africa) and a PhD in the history and philosophy of science from the University of Sussex. He joined the Georgia Institute of Technology in 2000 as Kranzberg Professor in the School of History, Technology, and Society. Prior to that, he directed a research group in the history of science and technology at the Cité des sceinces et de l'industrie in Paris, and was the project leader of a team that wrote the history of the European Space Agency.

His most recent published work includes John Krige and Jessica Wang, eds., “Nation, Knowledge and Imagined Futures: Science, Technology and Nation-Building, Post-1945,” History and technology, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2015, pp. 171–340; and Sharing Knowledge, Shaping Europe: US Technological Collaboration and Nonproliferation (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, July 2016).

In November 2017 Krige organized an international workshop on “Writing the Transnational History of Science and Technology.” The proceedings will be published in 2018. He and Mario Daniels (Georgetown University) have also signed an advance contract with the University of Chicago Press for a book entitled Knowledge Regulation and National Security in Postwar America.



Followed by a dicussion panel

Should we be training Chinese PhDs in STEM fields?

Caitriona McLeish, David Nye and David Eggleton

9 March
Questionable Research Practices, Fraud and Retractions in Business and Management Research: How Big is the Problem and What we Whould do About it?
Ben Martin and Dennis Tourish (University of Sussex)


First intervention

This article analyses 129 retracted articles in peer-reviewed journals in business and management studies. We also draw from six in-depth interviews. Three of these were with journal editors involved in retractions; two were with co-authors of papers retracted because a fellow author committed research fraud; and one was with a former academic found guilty of research fraud.

Our aim is to promote debate about the causes and consequences of research misconduct, and to suggest possible remedies. Drawing on corruption theory, we suggest that a range of institutional, environmental and behavioural factors interact to provide incentives that sustain research misconduct.

We explore the research practices that have prompted retractions and contend that some widely-practised but questionable research practices, should be challenged so as to promote stronger commitment to research integrity and deter misconduct. We propose nine recommendations for action by authors, editors, publishers and the broader scientific community.

Second intervention

This paper examines the growing pressures and incentives encouraging research misconduct, along with the main consequences, as illustrated by the case of business school research. It considers different theoretical approaches to analysing organizational misconduct.

Drawing on a review of the literature primarily in the fields of business, management and organizational studies, we develop a formal taxonomy distinguishing appropriate conduct from blatantly inappropriate misconduct but with a specific focus on the ‘grey’ areas between these extremes, which we categorize as questionable and inappropriate behaviour. We identify various sources of research misbehaviour and different categories of those affected, namely other researchers, employers, students, journals and their editors, and societal stakeholders.

The aim of this paper is to provide a clearer understanding of what research behaviour is deemed appropriate or not, which stakeholders it affects, and the pressures and incentives likely to exacerbate the problem of research misconduct. We conclude with a discussion of how the taxonomy can help shape future good research practice (thereby setting a better example to students), along with some propositions for future research.


Dennis Tourish is Professor of Leadership and Organization Studies at the University of Sussex. He is the editor of the Sage journal Leadership. He is currently working on a book provisionally entitled ‘How Management Research Lost its Way’, to be published by Cambridge University Press.

Ben Martin is Professor of Science and Technology Policy Studies at SPRU, where he served as Director from 1997 to 2004. He is also an Associate Fellow at the Centre for Science and Policy (CSaP), and a Research Associate at the Centre for Business Research, Judge Business School, both at the University of Cambridge.

He has carried out research for 40 years in the field of science policy. He helped to establish techniques for evaluating scientific laboratories, research programmes and national scientific performance. He also pioneered the notion of ‘technology foresight’. More recently, he has carried out research on the benefits from government funding of basic research, the changing nature and role of the university, the impact of the Research Assessment Exercise, and the evolution of the field of science policy and innovation studies.

He has also published several papers on research misconduct. Since 2004, he has been Editor of Research Policy, and he is also the 1997 winner of the de Solla Price Medal for Science Studies.


Paper 1 [UoS password protected]: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=tourish-jmi-submission.pdf&site=25

Paper 2: https://www.dropbox.com/s/owgo5i2oqkdt2v1/Martin_AcademicMisconduct_RP_Nov16_FINAL.pdf?dl=0

Followed by a discussion panel

Publication ethics

Luigi Orsenigo, David Eggeton

23 March
Much ado about nothing (new)? Reflections on recent developments in research on policy mixes for sustainability transitions
Karoline Rogge (SPRU)


Several authors have pointed to the importance of paying attention to policy mixes for governing transition processes towards sustainability, with the bulk of recent empirical research focusing on policy mixes for energy transitions. This seminar takes the opportunity to provide an overview of recent developments in research on policy mixes for energy transitions, with a particular focus on some of the second generation policy mix research I have been involved in together with a number of co-authors, most prominently Florian Kern, Kristin Reichardt, Simona Negro, Joachim Schleich, Elisabeth Dütschke, Duncan Edmondson, Frank Geels, Benjamin Pfluger, Marko Hekkert, Mike Howlett and others.

Based on this selective overview I will offer some reflections on the state of affairs on research on policy mixes for energy and sustainability transitions. In particular, and as the question of the seminar title suggests, I will explore to which extent this observable buzz about policy mixes has led - or has the potential to lead to - truly new research avenues offering novel insights and improved policy advise, or rather represents old whine in new bottles (labeled as ‘policy mix edition’).

The ultimate aim of my personal reflection is to set the ground for a stimulating follow-up discussion on promising future research avenues and the policy relevance of policy mix research. In particular, I would like to encourage broad discussions on potential cross-fertilisations of research streams to further advance the field, may that be through applications of policy mix thinking which go beyond energy transitions (such as health), the utilisation of previously unexplored research methods in the emerging literature on policy mixes (which so far has been dominated by conceptual and qualitative work), or the development of novel interdisciplinary frameworks for investigating policy mixes for sustainability transitions (such as through combining innovation studies with policy studies).


Karoline Rogge is Senior Lecturer in Sustainability Innovation and Policy at the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) and Co-Director of the Sussex Energy Group at the University of Sussex. She joined SPRU in November 2013 from the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI in Karlsruhe, Germany, where she continues to work as Senior Researcher. Karoline's interdisciplinary research combines insights from innovation studies, policy studies and environmental economics to investigate the link between policy and innovation, with a focus on low-carbon energy transitions.

Over the past five years (or so) Karoline has focused on the role of policy mixes for green innovation and sustainability transitions. In this regard, she has contributed to developing and applying a broader conceptualisation of policy mixes for sustainability transitions, utilising both qualitative and quantitative research methods.

Karoline holds a BSc in Geo-Ecology, a MSc in Economics, and an interdisciplinary PhD from ETH Zurich, Switzerland, in which she conducted an empirical analysis of the innovation impact of the EU Emissions Trading System. Karoline convenes the introductory module for SPRU’s Energy Policy MSc course and guest lectures, among others, on the German Energy Transition. Karoline has advised policy makers in Germany, Luxembourg, the UK, the EU and China and prior to joining academia has worked at the World Bank and the OECD.


Paper 1: https://www.dropbox.com/s/c8xalvayjrt50n0/Rogge%20policy%20mix%20Draft2%2020171221.pdf?dl=0
Paper 2: https://www.dropbox.com/s/q15cs7vqjteruxe/Rogge%20et%20al%202017%20advances%20policy%20mixes%20ERSS33.pdf?dl=0

Followed by a discussion panel

Avenues for future policy mix research: conceptual advancements, methodological diversity and empirical expansions

Duncan Endomondson

13 April
What drives health research in Africa?
Lili Wang (UNU-MERIT)


Sub-Saharan Africa is a developing area facing severe, urgent, and often unique health challenges. The region has made overall progress during the last decades in reducing mortality and prolonging life but its burden of disease per population continues to be two times higher than that of higher income countries. At the same time, most Sub-Saharan African countries have difficulties to support medical research, and the pharmaceutical industry may be reluctant to sponsor research in lower income countries because the prospects of profit are limited, even if effective treatments are developed (Taylor, 1986). Therefore, health research performed in this region should have a special emphasis on their local health problems.

The main objective of this study is to evaluate whether the amount of research produced on various medical conditions by sub-Saharan African researchers is related to their countries burden of disease and health needs of the local populations, and what are the main forces in driving the health research in Africa. To do that we will combine bibliometric data from the Web of Science with the estimates of the disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) produced by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Previous research has suggested that at the global level there is lack of alignment between research effort and health problems (Agarwal and Searls, 2009; Evans et al., 2014; Rafols and Yegros, 2017). In our research we will look specifically at the scientific output of sub-Saharan African researchers and also at the funding institutions acknowledged in their publications. This will allow us to evaluate if there are specific funding institutions that are supporting research that is more “relevant” to certain sub-Saharan African countries. Since disease burden and publication output change overtime, we will also conduct a dynamic analysis to see how these two dimensions are connected.

This approach and research question may be interesting for two main reasons. First, due to the tremendous health challenges the continent faces, improved Africa-relevant health research and well-trained health workers can have a great impact on health outcomes. Second, the improvement in Africa’s research capabilities in the health sciences may demonstrate that persistent support and funding from development partners such as the Welcome Trust, NIH, European Union or Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, might payoff.


Lili Wang obtained her PhD degree from Eindhoven University of Technology and joined UNU-MERIT in 2008. Her research interests include science and technology economics, innovation systems, scientometric analysis and dynamics of international collaboration networks.

She has conducted various research projects since 2008 and her work has been widely published in peer-reviewed journals, such as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), Research Policy, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Journal of Informetrics, Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford Development Studies, Scientometrics, China Economic Review, Research Evaluation, International Journal of Technology Management, etc. 


Background paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd2973
Background paper: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0090147
Background paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3106713
Background paper: https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/drug-research-priorities-at-odds-with-global-disease-toll
Background paper: https://www.popline.org/node/344741

Followed by a discussion panel

Funding effect on scientific research in developing countries

Joanna Chataway, Frederique Bone

20 April
Technology and the Future of Work: Aggregate Employment Effects of Digitization
Melanie Arntz (Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW))


There is a controversial public debate on the socio-economic consequences of the accelerating digitization, but only little scientific evidence on the contemporary consequences of cutting-edge digital technologies for aggregate employment. In this paper, we develop a theoretical framework that captures the key macroeconomic adjustment mechanisms to digitization.

We conduct a survey among German firms concerning their current digitization measures, link it to the social security records of the firms and their employees, and empirically estimate our model using this data. Based on a decomposition that we directly derive from our model, we estimate the aggregate effects of digitization, as well as the contributions of different adjustment mechanisms, on employment, unemployment and wages.

Our preliminary results suggest that cutting-edge digital technologies have a small positive effect on aggregate employment, but lead to large movements of workers between occupations and industries.


Melanie Arntz is acting head of ZEW's Research Department "Labour Markets, Human Resources and Social Policy". Her research focusses on the question how changing labour market conditions such as an increasing digitalization of work tasks and the proceeding international division of production processes affects labour markets and individuals. She is also interested in the dynamics of individual labour market careers in response to these phenomena and the impact of regional labour market conditions on these dynamics.

Melanie Arntz is the coordinator of the research area „Changing Labour Markets“ and has a long record of research projects and research-oriented policy consulting. She is member of the panel on regional theory and regional politics of the German Economic Association and co-editor of the Journal for Labour Market Research.

Melanie Arntz studied geography at the University of Bonn and at the University of Minnesota with a focus on economic geography and regional labour markets. In addition, she studied economics at the undergraduate level at the University of Bonn and finished her doctoral thesis in empirical economics regarding "The Geographic Mobility of Heterogenous Labour in Germany" at TU Darmstadt in 2007.

Followed by a discussion panel

Digitisation and employment

Josh Siepel, Simone Vannuccini

27 April
Threshold Policy Effects and Directed Technical Change in Energy Innovation
Elena Verdolini (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM))


This paper analyzes the effect of environmental policies to redirect energy innovation across countries over the period 1990-2012. Our novelty is to use threshold regression models to allow for the existence of of non-linearities in policy effectiveness depending on existing competencies in renewable relative to fossil fuel technologies. We find that environmental policies started to be effective for relative green competencies just above the median.

In this critical regime, market-based policies are moderately effective in promoting green innovation, while command-and-control policies play an important role in depressing brown innovation. Market-based policies are better in the last regime to consolidate a comparative advantage in renewable technologies. We illustrate how our approach can be used to design environmental policies in laggard countries.


Elena Verdolini holds a degree in Political Science from the University of Pavia, a Master of Public Administration and a Master of Arts in International Studies from the University of Washington, Seattle and a PhD from Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan. She focuses on applied analysis, with an interest in the dynamics of innovation, technology transfer, green growth, and the economic impacts of environmental and energy policies.

She was involved in several internationally-funded research projects, most recently the H2020 project INNOPATHS, a major effort to characterise the EU energy transition, highlighting systemic barriers and enables. She has published in several peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of International Economics, the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, the Review of Environmental Economics and Policy and Risk Analysis.

She was one of the authors of the Deep Decarbonisation Pathways Project for Italy, and will be a Lead Author in Working Group III for the 6th Assessment report of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).



Followed by a discussion panel

Effectiveness of different policy instruments on innovation in green as opposed to brown technologies OR Threshold effects in policy effectiveness

4 May
Frugal Innovation: Doing More (and Better) with Less
Jaideep Prabhu (University of Cambridge)


The global economy will face significant challenges over the next few decades. On the one hand, it must meet the needs of 7 billion consumers (growing to 9 billion by 2050), including the currently unmet basic needs of large numbers in developing countries in areas such as food, energy, housing and health. On the other hand, it must achieve this growth without exceeding the resources available on the planet or causing environmental devastation.

This paper argues that such change is possible through a systemic shift to a frugal economy that involves radical, frugal innovation across sectors. Such a transformation will involve the participation of large and small firms, consumers and governments alike.

The paper introduces the notion of frugal innovation—the creation of faster, better and cheaper solutions for more people that employ minimal resources—and discusses strategies and examples of such change already taking place in core sectors like manufacturing, food, automotive and energy in developing and developed economies.

It also outlines the role of the interaction between large and small firms as well as between firms and consumers in making change possible, as well as the role of governments in driving change where market mechanisms alone will not suffice.


Jaideep Prabhu is Professor of Marketing and Jawaharlal Nehru Professor of Indian Business at Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
He has published in leading academic journals and his work has been profiled by the BBC, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, The Economist, The Financial Times, Le Monde, The New York Times, and The Times.

He is the co-author of Jugaad Innovation: Think Frugal, Be Flexible, Generate Breakthrough Growth, described by The Economist as “the most comprehensive book yet” on the subject of frugal innovation. His most recent book, Frugal Innovation, was published in February 2015 and won the CMI’s Management Book of the Year Award 2016.



Followed by a discussion panel

Inclusive innovation

Raphie Kaplinsky, Adrian Ely

11 May
Teaming up with large R&D investors: Good or bad for knowledge production and diffusion?
Simone Vannuccini (SPRU)


Abstract unavailable.


Simone is the new Lecturer in the Economics of Innovation at SPRU. Before joining SPRU, he has been working at the Friedrich Schiller University Jena (Germany), where he also got his PhD in Economics of Innovative Change. He has been also Adjunct Professor at the University of Insubria in Italy, teaching Economics of Innovation.

Usually, Simone works on the theoretical side of Innovation and Technology, in particular focusing on the concept of General Purpose Technologies, but he is also interested in industrial and productivity dynamics, automation, knowledge spillovers.

Followed by a discussion panel

5 June
Are Governments Good Venture Capitalists? New Cross-Country Evidence From Micro-Data
Carlo Menon (OECD)


This paper presents new evidence on government Venture Capital across countries using Crunchbase, a unique dataset on innovative companies and their investors. The main findings show that start-ups receiving funding from public investors are significantly different from those receiving private funding: in particular, their founders are older, and are more likely to have experience in research.

Public investors also target companies in sectors where time to exit is longer. Furthermore, this paper shows that firms receiving a first round of purely public VC are less likely to receive a second round of VC (whether private or public) than firms receiving a first round of purely private VC. However, the form of investment which is most likely to be followed by financing in subsequent rounds is that of a syndicate composed of both public and private investors.

Subsequently, the analysis characterizes the transition between these different types of investments and shows that the type of investors in the first and second rounds are highly correlated (i.e. the rate of transition between public, private or mixed investors is low). Because of that, the likelihood of receiving a second round of financing from a private VC is significantly lower for start-ups backed by public or mixed VC in the earlier round.

While these new findings add nuance to the existing literature and put into perspective the effectiveness of mixed VC in leading to second round of investment, this report also shows that mixed VC is associated with higher probability of successful exit than private (and public) VC.


Carlo Menon is an Economist within the Structural Policy Division of the Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation of the OECD since 2011. In this capacity, Carlo contributes to evidence-based policy analysis on innovative entrepreneurship, structural change, and policy evaluation.

Previously he had been working as a Research Economist at the Bank of Italy, and he is also an affiliate with the Spatial Economic Research Centre at the London School of Economics and Political Science (UK). His research is being published in recognized academic journals, including Economic Policy, the Journal of Economic Geography, the World Bank Economic Review, and the Journal of Banking & Finance.

Carlo holds a PhD from the London School of Economics and Political Science, UK (2009), and a M.Res. (2005) and a B.Sc. (2003) in Economics from the University of Venice, Italy.

Followed by a discussion panel

Research questions and conceptual frameworks for examining work in the digital age: how do these inform the policy agenda?

Hugo Confraria, Sebastiano Cattaruzzo

Autumn 2017
29 September
Bioscience Research Cluedo - Where, How and with What?
Steven Wooding (University of Cambridge)


Steve will summarise the conclusions from 15 years of projects using case studies to trace the 10-25 impacts of biomedical research in three fields and ask what conditions are associated with research success. What researchers, environments and what types of funding are likely to lead to academic success and societal impact. He will go on to describe initial results from work using econometric and bibliometric approaches to explore whether there are economies of scale and scope in biomedical research. In other words, what can we say about how best to group and organise biomedical researchers, and what implications might these conclusions have for research policy?


Steve is the Lead for Research and Analysis and a Senior Research Associate at the Centre for Science and Policy at the University of Cambridge. He joined the centre in April having previously held various senior positions at RAND Europe (a not for profit policy research organisation), latterly Senior Research Leader. While at RAND Europe, Steve co-directed the Department of Health Policy Research Unit for Policy Research in Science and Medicine (PRiSM) for eight years.

For the past 15 years Steve has studied the science of science and advised research funders across the world. The key themes of his work are using research evaluation to inform the design of science funding systems; the effectiveness of peer review; bibliometric methods; and understanding the social processes of science. Steve has used case studies to trace research impacts over 25 years; used bibliometrics to map the global funding of mental health research and econometric approaches to estimate the return on public sector biomedical research. He has also experimented with taking these approaches outside bioscience to examine social sciences and the arts and humanities.

Steve has recently completed a project to collate the evidence on the efficiency and effectiveness of peer review for allocating research funding. He is currently studying the effects of co-location on research productivity; the influences on researchers’ choice of research topic; and developing new approaches to bibliometric assessment.

Background papers



Followed by a discussion panel

Reflections on Methods on Research Evaluation

Daniele Rotolo, Frédérique Bone

6 October
EU Smart Specialisation Policy in a Comparative Perspective
Slavo Radosevic (UCL)


The EU Smart Specialization is probably currently the biggest experiment in the world in innovation/industrial policy. The talk will position EU smart specialization within the context of the six other newly emerged approaches to industrial and innovation policy. They all share the idea that the ultimate constraints to growth are unknown, and all try to address the issues related to the specialization choices, as well as the challenges of technology upgrading and innovation-based growth. Within this context, EU smart specialization is defined as the EU’s version of a new industrial innovation policy. The talk will also summarizes key policy messages based on the comparative assessment of the EU smart specialization including lessons for non-EU economies.


Slavo Radosevic is Professor of Industry and Innovation Studies at the UCL where he has also been acting director of School of Slavonic and East European Studies. He had worked at University of Sussex SPRU as a researcher (1993-1999) and before that as a researcher in Croatia. His main research interests are in science, technology, industrial change, foreign direct investments and innovation policy in Europe, with particular reference to central and eastern Europe (CEE). He has published extensively in international journals in these areas and has edited several volumes on these issues. He favours empirically oriented and policy relevant research projects, based on neo-Schumpeterian economics. He acts as an expert for the EC, OECD, UNESCO, UNIDO, World Bank, UNECE and Asian Development Bank and several governments in CEE. He also had significant policy-making experience in Croatia and ex-Yugoslavia at the highest policy level. He is a special advisor to the EC DG Commissioner for Regional and Urban Policy. He is visiting professor at Higher School of Economics St Petersburg.



Chapter 1: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=radosevic-01-ch-01.pdf&site=25

Chapter 15: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=radosevic-15-ch-15.pdf&site=25

Followed by a discussion panel

What is New in New Industrial Policy?

Maria Savona, FIlippo Bontadini, Raphie Kaplinsky

13 October
Measuring Innovation as the Successful Exploitation of New Ideas: an international firm level panel data analysis
Paul Stoneman (University of Warwick)


In UK policy debates it has been common practice to define innovation as the successful exploitation of new ideas. This concept is here formalised at the firm level at a point in time, allowing for imperfect competition, as the difference between the growth in the nominal profits of the firm and the weighted sum of (i) growth in exogenously determined wage rates and (ii) inflation in the market for the firm’s output, and can be calculated for any firm using publicly available firm level accounting data.

Using data upon an unbalanced sample of 16457 firms over the period 1988-2012 operating in 39 sectors and in 38 countries we have calculated this measure of innovativeness for each of these firms for each time period as data allowed. It is found that the mean value of the innovativeness measure over the whole panel data set i.e. the average annual rate of growth of profits that is the result of additions to the stock of knowledge is 5.15% p.a. The variances in firm performance within countries, sectors and time have been taken into account to reveal where there are statistically significant differences in innovative performance within and across these groupings.


Currently Emeritus Professor, formerly Research Professor, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, England. One time Visiting Professor, Stanford University and Visiting Fellow, Nuffield College, Oxford. Former member, Competition Commission Appeals Tribunal. Adviser to governments and private sector companies on innovation, productivity and performance. Research interests centre upon the economics of innovation and technical change, especially diffusion. Extensive list of publications in the field including a recent book, 'Soft innovation: Economics product aesthetics and the creative industries', and forthcoming 'The Microeconomics of Product Innovation' (with Eleonora Bartoloni and Maurizio Baussola).




Followed by a discussion panel

Measuring Firm Performance and Its Relation to Innovation

Josh Siepel, Ohid Yaqub

20 October
Why Should Low Income Countries Measure Innovation?
Fred Gault (UNU-MERIT)


The focus of the seminar is on innovation policy in African countries and the statistical measurement of innovation. Africa is chosen as an example as there are policies that include innovation in Member States of the African Union and in Regional Economic Communities (RECs). At the level of the African Union Commission, the Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy for Africa (STISA) 2024, and the longer term Agenda 2063, The Africa we want, are influencing policy development and statistical measurement. In principle, these initiatives should lead to policy cohesion, a better understanding of innovation through statistical measurement and better outcomes from policy.

However, there is more interest in science and technology policy, in low income countries, directed at universities and government research centres, than innovation policy dealing with support for innovation in the business sector, including its informal and formal components. There is limited support for innovation policy directed at households or public institutions and no official statistics for innovation outside of the business sector. These issues are discussed, drawing upon on outcomes of the African Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (ASTII) initiative, the work of the African Observatory for Science, Technology and Innovation (AOSTI), the 2005 Consolidated Plan of Action (CPA), and the role of international organisations and global challenges such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The objective is to find a direction towards more effective innovation policies in Africa.


Fred Gault is a Professor Extraordinaire at the Tshwane University of Technology (TUT) in South Africa and a member of the TUT Institute for Economic Research on Innovation (IERI). He served on the Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) Panel on the State of Science and Technology in Canada, the CCA Panel on the Socio-Economic Impacts of Innovation Investments, and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Panel on Developing Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators for the Future. He is a member of the Scientific Council of the Portuguese Observatory of Science, Technology and Qualifications and the South African DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (SciSTIP). He chairs the Advisory Committee of the Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (CeSTII) at the Human Sciences Research Council in South Africa.


Paper: https://www.dropbox.com/s/71ks59q0yvgup94/GAULT%20Ambali%20Mangwende%20SPRU%2050th.pdf?dl=0

Policy Brief: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2jcpzmizngsg4o8/Gault_252608902-Innovation-for-Development-in-Southern-Eastern-Africa-Challenges-for-Promoting-ST-I-Policy.pdf?dl=0

Followed by a discussion panel

Promoting Innovation Policy in Africa

Martin Bell, Chux Daniels

27 October
Do Firms Publish? A Look into Corporate Science
Daniele Rotolo & Roberto Camerani (SPRU)


The seminar will examine the phenomenon of corporate publishing from a conceptual and empirical perspective. On the basis of a systematic review of the literature, we will first present a conceptual framework that identifies five categories of firms' incentives to publish: (i) accessing external knowledge and resources; (ii) attracting, recruiting, and retaining researchers; (iii) signaling and reputation building; (iv) supporting IP strategies; and (v) supporting commercialization strategies.

We will then address a critical gap in extant literature on corporate publishing, i.e. a lack of cross-sectoral studies examining firms' publication activity. More precisely, we will provide insights on the publications activity of the top 2,500 firms (and of about 570,000 subsidiaries of these firms) most active in terms of R&D in 40 industrial sectors.


Daniele Rotolo is a Lecturer in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy at SPRU, University of Sussex. From 2014 to 2016, Daniele was an EU Marie Curie Researcher at SPRU and the School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology. He holds a PhD (European Doctorate) in Innovation Management from Scuola Interpolitecnica (Italy), and was a visiting PhD student at the University College London and Stern Business School, New York University. His most recent work has focussed on the conceptualisation and operationalisation of emerging technologies, inter-organisational network dynamics featuring in technological change, scientometric mapping techniques, the role of networks in knowledge creation, barriers to interdisciplinary research, and corporate science/publishing. Personal website: www.danielerotolo.com

Roberto Camerani is a Research Fellow at SPRU, University of Sussex. He holds a PhD in Science and Technology Policy Studies, and an MSc in Innovation and Industry Analysis from SPRU, University of Sussex. Roberto also has a degree in Economics from Bocconi University, Milan. Before joining the University of Sussex, Roberto contributed to a number of research projects at CRIOS, Bocconi University, and INGENIO (CSIC-UPV, Valencia). His main research interests include the economics of innovation, the adoption and diffusion of innovations, entrepreneurship and innovation in the creative and cultural industries, patent analysis, firm growth and innovation.

Background report


Followed by a discussion panel

Corporate science: what, when, who, where?

Josh Siepel, Ohid Yaqub

3 November
The political economy of Science Granting Councils in Sub-Saharan Africa
Joanna Chataway (SPRU)


This seminar will present a study carried out for IDRC, DfID and the South African NRF, which was designed to support the Science Franting Councils initiative (SGCI). The SGCI aims to strengthen Science Franting Councils (SGCs) in 14 countries in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The research had the following specific objectives: (i) advance existing knowledge on the political and economic context of SGCs in selected countries/regions, including the role and influence of key institutions, agents and structures. (ii) thorugh an understanding of this political and economic context identify key considerations (e.g., opportunities, barriers, strengths) that can inform SGCI objectives. (iii) provide baseline information to inform the overall evaluation of the SGCI, including recommendation for ongoing monitoring or ex post assessment (via a second series of case studies) to gauge the impact of SGCI activities.

In order to charcterise and understand the political and economic context of SGCs, the research ream developed a conceptual approach to political economy that included structures, agents, institutions and ideas. Drawing on mixed methods and including case studies of 4 countries in East Africa and a light touch case study of Senegal.

The study identified six key findings: (i) All case study countries are committed to increasing funding for science but overall levels of funding are still low. (ii) At the national regional level there is reference to the important role that the private sector could play. However private sector funding is low and engagement is patchy across countries. (iii) There is increasing activity at the regional level and interest in supporting programmes that shift ownership to Africa. (iv) There are divergent agendas at national and regional levels. (v) There is no clear narrative about relative strengths of East, South, West Africa sub-regions. (vi) Health and agriculture are the sectors which receive most resource in the SSa region but this may change over th coming years.


Joanna Chataway is Deputy Director and Professor of Science and Technology Policy at SPRU, University of Sussex. She was formerly Director of the Innovation, Health and Science Group at RAND Europe. She has held senior positions and appointments across a range of academic, policy research, consulting and research funding bodies.

Joanna has particular expertise in the fields of S&T policy, health research and innovation policy and international development. Her research has spanned public and private sectors and she has worked in industrially developed and developing countries. For many years Joanna was a professor at The Open University and she received her Ph.D. from The Open University. She is a member of the Phi Beta Kappa Honors Society and has an honorary position at the Open University. She is named in the Academia.Net database of Outstanding Female Academics. Joanna is currently a member of the BBSRC Bioscience in Society Strategy Panel.

Presentation notes


Followed by a discussion panel

What are Science Granting Councils for?

Martin Bell, Ohid Yaqub

10 November
Response-Ability and Cultivating Cultures of Care: Insights from the Laboratory Animal House
Beth Greenhough (University of Oxford)


Laboratory animal science offers arguably one of the most challenging and certainly controversial forms of human-animal relations in the Anthropocene, and as such has formed the focus of intense moral concern and regulation within the UK. This paper draws on longitudinal ethnographic research and in-depth interviews undertaken with junior laboratory animal technicians in UK universities between 2013 and 2015, as well as insights from interviews with key stakeholders in laboratory animal welfare.

We consider how within and through the space of the animal house, different notions of care are enacted alongside practices which inflict animal harm and suffering as permitted within the limitations of research protocols. These notions of care range from the pervasive and enduring influence of Russell and Burch’s (1959) 3Rs (reduction, refinement and replacement) for animal welfare, to a growing emphasis on professionalism and standards framed as a ‘culture of care’, to concerns over the emotional labour and burden carried by laboratory animal technicians, to the individual response-abilities (after Haraway 2008) enacted by animal technicians in the course of their day-to-day care work, to the challenges presented by anti-vivisectionist activism.

We argue that these practices of care and responsibility seek to address both animal and human welfare needs within the laboratory animal house in multiple forms (after Mol 2002); sometimes with interspecies complementarity (where human and animal wellbeing coincide) at other times contradictory (where the good of animals, humans and scientific practices diverge), and always with implications for how we might conceptualise and practice human and laboratory animal welfare in the future.


Beth Greenhough is Associate Professor of Human Geography and Fellow of Keble College, University of Oxford. Her work draws on a combination of political-economic geography, cultural geography and science studies to explore the social implications of scientific innovations in the areas of health, biomedicine and the environment. Employing a range of qualitative, ethnographic and archival methods, Beth seeks to understand the social, cultural and ethical processes through which humans and animals are made available as experimental subjects for biomedical research. She also contributes to the development of new theoretical and methodological approaches within Geography better able to capture the material and affective dimensions of human-environment relations and how these are being reconfigured through biotechnological innovation.




Followed by a discussion panel

Cultures and Practices of Care

Josh Hutton, Anuradha Damale, Mark Erickson

17 November
Perspectives on Innovation and the Distribution of Income
Caroline Paunov (OECD)


Income inequalities have increased in most OECD countries over the past decades; particularly the income share of the top 1%. In this paper we argue that the growing importance of digital innovation – new products and processes based on software code and data – has increased market rents, which benefit disproportionately the top income groups. In line with Schumpeter’s vision, digital innovation gives rise to ”winner-take-all” market structures, characterized by higher market power and risk than was the case in the previous economy of tangible products.

The cause for these new market structures is digital non-rivalry, which allows for massive economies of scale and reduces costs of innovation. The latter stimulates higher rates of creative destruction, leading to higher risk as only marginally superior products can take over the entire market, hence rendering market shares unstable. Instability commands risk premia for investors.

Market rents accrue mainly to investors and top managers and less to the average workers, hence increasing income inequality. Market rents are needed to incentivize innovation and compensate for its costs, but beyond a certain level they become detrimental. Public policy may stimulate innovation by reducing ex ante the market conditions which favor rent extraction from anti-competitive practices.


Caroline Paunov is Senior Economist and Head of Secretariat for the OECD Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy (TIP) at the Directorate for Science, Technology, and Innovation of the OECD. She currently oversees the Working Party’s work on digital and open innovation and on impacts of knowledge transfer and policy. She has conducted extensive work on innovation for inclusive growth. Caroline also developed national intellectual property rights systems in emerging economies.

Specialised in applied econometrics, her research work has been published in leading academic journals, including the Review of Economics and Statistics, the Journal of Development Economics, the Canadian Journal of Economics, Research Policy and World Development. Previously, she worked for the World Bank, the United Nations and cooperated on various projects for the public sectors in Brazil, Spain and Germany. She holds a B.A. and M.A. (Hons) from the University of Oxford, a M.Sc. from the University Pompeu Fabra and a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of London.



Background material


Followed by a discussion panel

Innovation and inequality in the digital age

Bernardo Caldarola, Edgar Salgado Chavez

24 November
Everyday Austerity: Intersectional Approaches to Lived Experiences of Economic Change
Sarah Marie Hall (University of Manchester)


With this paper I explore conceptual and practical applications of intersectional approaches to lived experiences of economic change. The implicit assumptions made about gender, race and social class and the links between, have long been understood as a form of geographical referencing; a way of placing ourselves and being placed by others, both socially and spatially.

Using findings from the Everyday Austerity project, a two year ethnography with community groups and families in Greater Manchester (2013-2015), I illustrate how austere politics play out in everyday spaces and relationships, exacerbating social differences and inequalities.

These findings illuminate how managing the fall-out from austere policies, whether managing budgets, performing care-work, or providing emotional support, in families, communities and everyday encounters, remains a largely gendered and classed responsibility, in ways not always fully or accurately acknowledged in extent literatures.

From here, I also reflect on the role of intersectionality and social positioning in the context of research engagement. While an accent associated with Northern, working class, peripheral regions and identities in the UK opens up spaces of opportunity; a means of leveling with participants, scope for discussion and similarity, it can also present obstacles when engaging with policy-makers.

Leaps in understanding can be made about how and whether as a researcher your experiences are similar to those you study, and the extent to which you may be able to 'speak for' others, particularly when intersected with gender and generationality, too. Further discussion of class as an 'intersectional connector' is much needed, as a less often acknowledged but significant form of social positioning in research encounters.


Sarah Marie Hall is Lecturer in Human Geography at the University of Manchester, and from 2012-2015 was Hallsworth Research Fellow in Political Economy. Her research sits in the broad field of geographical feminist political economy: understanding how socio-economic processes are shaped by gender relations, lived experience and social difference.

She is particularly interested in everyday family life and economic change; ethics, care and consumption; and feminist praxis, including ethnographic and participatory methods. Sarah also sits on the Management Committee of the Women's Budget Group and is Treasurer of the Economic Geography Research Group of the RGS-IBG.



Background material


Followed by a discussion panel

The Personal is Political? Personal Politics and Emotional Encounters in Policy-Making

Marion Clark, Mari Martiskainen

1 December
System Transition and Structural Change Processes in the Energy Efficiency of Residential Sector
Valeria Costantini (Università Roma Tre)


There is growing interest in understanding the role played by the different combinations of the available policy instruments in stimulating and directing technical change. In particular, the literature has recently focused on the role of policy mix, a concept that at its basics considers the combination of policies into a composite set, but that also includes the processes through which different instruments emerge and interact (Flanagan et al., 2011).

In the specific context of analyses of policy mix designed to promote eco-innovation, Rogge and Reichardt (2016) make an effort to clarify the meaning of the main characteristics of policy mix identified in previous literature, both with regard to policy processes and instruments combinations. In particular, regarding the instrument mix, they refer to its consistency when positive interactions between different instruments take place and to its comprehensiveness, defined as the degree to which the instrument mix addresses all the three policy purposes of technology-push, demand-pull and systemic concerns.

These characteristics are expected to impact the performance of policy mix, though in a differentiated and context-specific way, depending on the features of each innovation system (Borras and Edquist, 2013). Empirical studies that focus on the effects of policy mixes on innovation (Guerzoni and Raiteri, 2015) and in particular on eco-innovation performances (Reichardt and Rogge, 2016; Uyarra et al.,2016) represent a limited though rapidly expanding area of research.

Following these contributions, here we propose a descriptive analysis based on a large sample of EU countries that aims to measure some significant characteristics of the policy mix and map European countries in terms of these characteristics and their dynamics over the past twenty years. The empirical analysis we propose focuses on the case of energy efficiency (EE) technologies in the residential sector, which appears to be appropriate since a large number of different policies in several countries aims to enhance EE, especially by fostering the generation and diffusion of new technologies (IEA, 2015; Sovacool, 2009).

In the examined case, the full range of demand-pull, technology-push, soft and systemic instruments are available in terms policy mapping and used in policy mix frameworks, allowing us to derive a comprehensive picture of the implemented policy mix across EU countries via the construction of ad hoc policy mix characteristics measures. In particular, following Costantini et al. (2017), we first focus our attention on the balance in the policy mix between demand-pull and technology-push instruments and, then, we move to the analysis of policy mix comprehensiveness in the policy domain of EE in the residential sector.

By applying a descriptive statistical tool as the cluster analysis, we map country groups according to their policy mix characteristics in different points of the two decades, in order to visualize if and to what extent policy mix characteristics converge among EU countries. This clustering procedure is also applied to the innovation dynamics in the same domain and the co-evolution of the clustering process of policy mix and technological trajectories is investigated.

Furthermore, since the policy decisions adopted by other countries are likely to influence domestic innovation performance (Dechezleprêtre and Glachant, 2014; Peters et al., 2012), we map EU countries against similarity measures between domestic and foreign policy mixes. In this respect, the specific domain under scrutiny is particularly favourable in investigating also trade-related bilateral relationships since the standard SITC classification at 4 digits allows disentangling export flows of domestic electrical appliances that are subject to the policy mix here mapped.


Valeria Costantini is Full Professor of Economic Policy at the Department of Economics, Roma Tre University (Italy). She is the coordinator of the M.Sc. in Environment and Development Economics and vice director of the Faculty of Economics and Business Studies.

She is a founder and a member of the advisory board of SEEDS, the Italian interuniversity research centre on Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, she has also recently joined the advisory board of the Roma Tre Centre of Excellence for Economic and Social Research Rossi-Doria, and she is research associate at UNS-GREDEG, Groupe de Recherche en Droit, Economie et Gestion, University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, France.

Formerly she has been senior researcher at the Italian National Research Institute for New Technologies, Energy and Environment (ENEA). She has been involved in several national and international research projects on climate change economics, international energy markets, innovation in green technologies and policy mix design. She has published extensively in several international journals in the fields of climate change economics, eco-innovation, environmental regulation policies, and international trade issues.



Followed by a discussion panel

Global Environmental Challenges as an Engine for Structural Changes in Europe

Florian Kern, Alberto Marzucchi

8 December
From Experiments to Changing Sociotechnical Systems: What Is the Role of Intermediaries?
Paula Kivimaa (SPRU)


Experiments have gained increasing attention and hype in academia and public debate alike as a solutions to societal problems pertaining to environmental problems, facilitating socio-technical transition to sustainable and zero carbon systems. At the same time much uncertainly exists what kind of outcomes result from experiments and how they in practice contribute to sociotechnical system transformation.

Intermediary actors and platforms have been proposed as key catalysts that speed up change towards more sustainable sociotechnical systems, aggregating learning from experiments, advocating the build-up of institutions for new alternatives, and disrupting the existing socio-technical arrangements that may hinder the embedding and upscaling of experiments. Where do such actors originate from, what do they intermediate and what may cause problems when intermediating at the interface of experimentation and incumbent systems?

In this presentation, Paula Kivimaa summarises a programme of research from the last 2.5 years she has carried out in the context of the Centre on Innovation and Energy Demand, and with support of multiple scholar from CIED and elsewhere. In her summary, she draws on systematic literature reviews on experiments and intermediaries in sustainability transitions more broadly as well as empirical examples from the UK building sector.


Dr Paula Kivimaa is Senior Research Fellow at SPRU working for the Centre on Innovation and Energy Demand (CIED). She also holds another position as Senior Researcher at the Finnish Environment Institute SYKE. Her research ranges from climate, energy and environmental policy analysis from the perspective of innovation to examining change and stability in energy and transport systems.

Her current research interests include policy analysis from low-carbon innovation and transition perspectives as well as policy complementing approaches to support low-carbon innovation, such as intermediation and experiments. Paula has recently lead a project at CIED on low energy innovation and intermediaries in the building sector. She is also a PI in projects funded by the Academy of Finland and the Strategic Research Council of Finland.

Kivimaa has recently published articles on the theme of intermediaries and experiments in Research Policy, Journal of Cleaner Production, Energy Efficiency and Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. She has also co-edited a book “Innovating Climate Governance: Moving Beyond Experiments” to be published by Cambridge University Press in 2018.

Paula is communicating with the European Environment Agency, OECD Working Party on Technology and Innovation Policy and Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation Tekes among others to advance the perspective of sustainability transitions in policy and governance.



Followed by a discussion panel

Johan Schot, Noam Bergman

15 December
Technological Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Productivity in Germany, 1850-2015
Wim Naudé (Maastricht School of Management)


Germany has been stagnating entrepreneurially. As a result, the effectiveness of technological inventions to improve labor productivity has weakened. As a consequence, income inequality and poverty have worsened. In this paper, we illustrate how patters of technological innovation and labor productivity growth have evolved since the modern German state was established in 1871.

This shows that in contrast to earlier periods, when the essential core of the modern Germany economy was built, over the past three decades the economy has found it more and more difficult to transform technological inventions into labor productivity growth. Despite higher spending on R&D and more personnel than ever working in research labs, labor productivity growth continues to decline.

Two main interrelated reasons are offered for this. The first is that the national innovation system itself has certain weaknesses. The second is entrepreneurial stagnation. We discuss the nature and causes of this entrepreneurial stagnation.

We conclude by arguing for policies that will improve the industrial-innovation system, managerial capability, venture capital, the diversity of education, and the contestability of markets. Strengthening social protection and raising real wages would be important supportive measures.


Wim Naudé is Professor at Maastricht University and Dean of the Maastricht School of Management, in the Netherlands. He is also Professorial Fellow at UNU-MERIT and Board Member of the CERES Research School for International Development at the University of Utrecht.

Before moving to Maastricht, he was Senior Research Fellow at UNU-WIDER in Helsinki, Finland, Research Director at North-West University in South Africa, and Research Officer at the University of Oxford. His research is broadly concerned with the role of occupational choice in development and how this is shaped by technology, trade and geography.

Followed by a discussion panel

The Productivity Paradox and Rising Inequality – Do we need more, not less, innovation?

Luigi Orsenigo, Edgar Salgado Chavez

Spring 2017
3 February
Emerging innovation systems (EIS) : A news paradigm for STI policies in African and Arab economies?
Abdelkader Djeflat (University of Lille I)


In many developing countries, innovation dynamics is confronted with a very specific environment characterized by the rise of very small enterprises and small and medium scale enterprises (SMEs) with little experience in the fields of R&D, relatively weak industrial performances in terms of productivity, and high level of obsolescence in terms of both human resources and equipment. This is partly the result of long lasting des-industrialisation phenomenon. While the approach in terms of National Innovation Systems (NSI) attracts a great deal of attention from policy makers, and researchers, several attempts to trigger off innovation through this approach have failed mostly as a result of a poor understanding of how innovation systems emerge in non-catch-up countries. Emerging Innovation Systems (EIS) approach proposed in this paper rests on the premise that innovation takes off in a variety of ways needing both strong policy impulses from government and adequate market dynamics. It addresses the fundamental question of how innovation Emergence takes place in late industrializing countries such as North African countries, both in terms of policies and conceptual framework and draws heavily from the Algerian experience.


Prof. Abdelkader Djeflat currently teaches industrial and development economics at the University of Lille in France and is Director of the Master on International Cooperation. He is Coordinator the International Network on S&T for Maghreb Development (MAGHTECH) and Senior Researcher at the Clerse Laboratory (CNRS UMR 8019). As full Professor in Economics at the University of Oran in Algeria, he held the position of Dean of the Faculty of Economics and then Chairman of the Scientific Committee. He was also principal adviser to the National Economic and Social Council (CNES) of Algeria on Knowledge based economy and did consultancy work for various international organisations: the World Bank Institute, the United Nations Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) UNDP and the European Union. He has written and edited several books and published more than 100 articles in various international journals. He is currently Vice President of the GLOBELICS Network.

Followed by a dicussion panel

Martin Bell and Chantal Naidoo

10 February
Kalecki's view on Technology and Military Keynesianism
Jan Toporowski (SOAS, University of London)


James M. Cypher’s paper on ‘The origins and evolution of military Keynesianism in the United States’ is a welcome account of some themes that circulate through the discussion of this topic. But, in its theoretical reflections, the paper overlooks some fundamental contributions, most notably by Paul Sweezy (Baran and Sweezy 1966, chapter 7; Sweezy 1981 – see also Szlajfer 1984 and ‘Notes from the Editors’, Monthly Review July-August 2016), Ron Smith (Smith 1977 and 1980) and Michał Kalecki. Among these authors Kalecki stands out because his understanding of military Keynesianism goes beyond the contribution that military expenditure can make to aggregate demand, to a critical appreciation of the political and economic difficulties of the aggregate demand management that commonly passes for Keynesianism. Those political and economic difficulties also reach beyond the political business cycle, that Professor Cypher has as Kalecki’s contribution to his discussion of military Keynesianism.



17 February
Recent trend in carbon emissions and the implications of the Paris Agreement for climate change research
Corinne Le Quere (University of East Anglia and Tyndall Centre)


As the concentration of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere crosses the symbolic mark of 400 parts per million, this presentation will detail what we understand of the drivers of recent trends in global CO2 emissions. It will show the complex dynamics between economic and technological drivers in industrial and industrialising countries, as expressed through the rise and fall of CO2 emissions at the national level. It will also contrast emissions trajectories with underlying policy incentives, and provide insights into near-term emissions projections. Finally it will discuss how to keep track of progress in the implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement, and to integrate broader implications for other priorities, particularly the Sustainable Development Goals. The presentation will mix recent results with discussion of the research strategy of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research post Paris in a background of the evolving political context in the UK and worldwide.


Corinne Le Quéré FRS is Professor of Climate Change Science and Policy at the University of East Anglia and Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, an interdisciplinary and pan-university research centre that works to inform sustainable responses to climate change.

Prof Le Quéré conducts research on the interactions among climate change, the carbon cycle, and society. Her research has contributed to understanding how climate change and variability affects the uptake of carbon by the natural carbon ’sinks', particularly in the Southern Ocean.

Prof Le Quéré instigated and leads the annual update of the 'global carbon budget' as part of the Global Carbon Project, an effort to highlight the very latest data on carbon emissions and their partitioning in the environment, understand their drivers, and assist policy and actions to address climate change. Prof Le Quéré was author of multiple assessments reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). She is a member of the Scientific Committee of the new 'Future Earth' research platform for global sustainability, and serves on the UK Committee on Climate Change. She was elected Fellow of the Royal Society in 2016.



Followed by a discussion panel

Blanche Ting; Adrian Ely

24 February
Open Science Governance: three institutional approaches
Elta Smith and Molly Morgan Jones (RAND Europe)


Open Science is a term used by researchers, funders, policy-makers and others to refer to changes in the way scientific research is conducted. It can involve changes for scientists themselves, such as open access to scientific papers and open data, as well as increased understanding of and participation in science by citizens. These changes are often associated with the potential to enable greater transparency, collaboration and research integrity in the short term and improve scientific quality in the long term. Open science advocates believe that the approach could lead to science becoming more inclusive, democratic and relevant to society; as well as helping to remove disciplinary barriers and encourage greater interaction between science and society. As a relatively new concept, open science is used in many different ways with different meanings and objectives. We explore three institutional approaches to incorporating open science principles in research and policy making: in the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority and the Structural Genomics Consortium and consider the implications for the future governance of research and research policy


Dr Molly Morgan Jones is a Senior Research Leader in the Innovation, Health and Science group at RAND Europe where she specialises in innovation and technology policy evaluation and research, and in particular the analysis of research impact. Molly has over 10 years’ experience working in these fields and is an experienced project leader having overseen studies across a range of public and private sector clients, including working with universities to help them identify impactful research in preparation for the UK’s national Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercise. This exercise introduced impact into a national assessment scheme for the first time and she was also a senior researcher for the subsequent evaluation of the impact preparation component.

At RAND Europe, Molly’s work policy work has spanned disciplines. Interesting projects she has led include: a review of organisational design and governance principles for the UK’s new joint research funding body, UKRI; an evaluation of the impact of EU funding for poverty-related and neglected diseases on universal health coverage in low and middle income countries; an evaluation of the National Institute of Health Research’s Senior Leadership Programme; an evaluation of the Qatar Science and Technology Park; development of a research impact management strategy and monitoring system for The Research Council of Oman; a horizon-scanning study for Public Health England on the future of public health; and an international study on the use of antiretroviral drugs for HIV prevention.
Prior to joining RAND Europe, Molly worked for the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a Presidential Management Fellow, and as a research fellow at the University of Sussex. Molly received her PhD in Science and Technology Policy at SPRU, the Science and Technology Policy Research unit, at the University of Sussex (UK). She graduated magna cum laude from Northwestern University (USA) with a BA in Biology (with honours) and a secondary concentration in Political Communication.


Dr Elta Smith is Research Leader in the Innovation, Health and Science programme at RAND Europe, an independent, not-for-profit research institute whose mission is to help improve policy and decision-making through research and analysis. RAND Europe was established in 1992 as an independently chartered European unit of the US policy research institution, the RAND Corporation.

Elta’s research focuses on research policy and governance issues related to science and technology policy. She is currently leading a study for DG Research and Innovation to develop a monitoring system for Open Science trends in the EU and she recently completed a study for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to assess the impact of proposed measures to improve transparency and openness in the risk assessment process.

Prior to joining RAND, Elta worked for ICF International, conducting policy analysis and evaluation for UK, EU and international bodies. She is the recipient of a U.S. National Science Foundation Fellowship, and the SV Ciriacy-Wantrup Fellowship in natural resource economics and political economy, University of California, Berkeley. Elta holds a Ph.D. in public policy from Harvard University and a B.A. in environmental science and policy from Barnard College, Columbia University.

Followed by a discussion panel

Michael Hopkins; Puay Tang

3 March
Coordinated expertise: How the division of knowledge creates coworker complementarities
Franke Neffke (Harvard Univeristy, CID)


Modern education systems allow individuals to become highly specialized. However, the skills of these specialized individuals are all but useless in isolation: only in teams, in which different workers possess different skills, do the benefits of specialization come to fruition. Using data on detailed educational tracks for the universe of Swedish workers, I analyse how important the first among coworkers' educational backgrounds is. I quantify this coworker fit by means of large-scale co-occurrence analysis along two dimensions, coworker match and coworker substitutability. Using an identification strategy based on predicted shifts in the local supply of graduates, I find that the premium to working with well-matching coworkers is at least as large as the returns to college education. Being substitutable by coworkers, in contrast, is associated with significant wage losses. Moreover, the educational fit among coworkers affects job- switching rates in a way increases this fitt for up to 20 years into a worker's career. Finally, the educational fit among coworkers not only partly ex- plains why a number of well-known wage premia exist, it also affects the size of these premia: returns to schooling and the urban wage premium are almost completely contingent on the educational fit among coworkers, whereas, for higher educated workers, the entire large-plant premium can be attributed to the greater number of well-matching coworkers that are found in large establishments.


Frank Neffke is a Senior Research Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School. At the Center for International Development's Growth Lab, his research focuses on how economic actors diversify from one economic activity to another. Central in this research is that activities can be more or less related in terms of the capabilities or skills they require. This relatedness affects diversification processes throughout the economy - ranging from individuals' career paths and corporate diversification strategies, to structural change in regional and national economies - but also has implications for the role of labor mobility and team formation in economic development. Before joining CID, Frank worked as an assistant professor at the Erasmus School of Economics in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. He holds a Ph. D. in Economic Geography from Utrecht University and Master degrees in Econometrics and Philosophy from the University of Amsterdam.



Followed by a discussion panel

Josh Hutton; Edgar Salgado

10 March
Kalecki's view on Technology and Military Keynesianism
Jan Toporowski


James M. Cypher’s paper on ‘The origins and evolution of military Keynesianism in the United States’ is a welcome account of some themes that circulate through the discussion of this topic. But, in its theoretical reflections, the paper overlooks some fundamental contributions, most notably by Paul Sweezy (Baran and Sweezy 1966, chapter 7; Sweezy 1981 – see also Szlajfer 1984 and ‘Notes from the Editors’, Monthly Review July-August 2016), Ron Smith (Smith 1977 and 1980) and Michał Kalecki. Among these authors Kalecki stands out because his understanding of military Keynesianism goes beyond the contribution that military expenditure can make to aggregate demand, to a critical appreciation of the political and economic difficulties of the aggregate demand management that commonly passes for Keynesianism. Those political and economic difficulties also reach beyond the political business cycle, that Professor Cypher has as Kalecki’s contribution to his discussion of military Keynesianism.


Jan Toporowski is Professor of Economics and Finance at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London; a Visiting Professor of Economics at the University of Bergamo; and Professor of Economics and Finance at the International University College, Turin. His research is concentrated on monetary theory and policy, finance, and the work of Michał Kalecki, whose biography he is writing.

Jan Toporowski's most recent book is Michał Kalecki An Intellectual Biography Volume 1 Rendezvous in Cambridge 1899-1939 (Palgrave 2013). He is the author of The End of Finance The Theory of Capital Market Inflation, Financial Derivatives and Pension Fund Capitalism (Routledge 2000), Theories of Financial Disturbance Critical Theories of Finance from Adam Smith to the Present Day (Elgar 2005) and 'Why the World Economy Needs a Financial Crash' and Other Critical Essays on Finance and Financial Economics (Anthem Press 2010).

Jan Toporowski has worked in fund management, international banking, and central banking. He has been a consultant for the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, and the Economist Intelligence Unit. Jan Toporowski studied economics at Birkbeck College, University of London, and the University of Birmingham, UK.



Followed by a discussion panel

Ed Steinmueller, Maciej Grodzicki, Simone Gasperin

17 March
Economic and Social Upgrading in Global Value Chains
Stephanie Barrientos (University of Manchester)


The majority of trade is now channeled through global value chains (GVCs) largely sourcing from emerging economies. Hundreds of millions of workers are linked to GVCs, a significant proportion female. GVCs are governed by global and regional lead-firms coordinating cross-border supplier networks. Buyers apply cost pressures on suppliers, whilst requiring compliance with private standards covering product, environment and social criteria. A development challenge is whether economic upgrading (higher value production) by emerging economy suppliers able to meet standards leads to social upgrading (better conditions and rights) for workers? This paper interrogates the drivers of economic and social upgrading and downgrading through the nexus of cost/productivity vs. quality/skill within a GVC framework. It draws on case studies from Kenyan flowers and Indonesian apparel to examine circumstances under which economic and social upgrading are combined. It argues this also involves addressing underlying barriers to gender equality within a workforce that is largely female. A ‘high road’ outcome is not automatic, but requires proactive strategies (private, public and social) to achieve positive developmental outcomes.


Professor Stephanie Barrientos teaches in the Global Development Institute at The University of Manchester. She was previously a Research Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex (2000-7). She has researched and published widely on gender, global production, employment, decent work, trade and labour standards, corporate social responsibility, fair trade, and ethical trade. She has undertaken research in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the UK. She coordinated the Capturing the Gains Research Programme (with Prof Gary Gereffi) examining economic and social upgrading in global production networks (www.capturingthegains.org). She has advised and provided training for a number of companies, NGOs and international organisations on issues concerning gender, agribusiness, ethical trade, decent work, and impact assessment, including: ActionAid, Body Shop, Cadbury Plc, CAFOD, Christian Aid, DEFRA, DFID, Gates Foundation, Green & Blacks, CAFOD, ILO, Oxfam, UNCTAD, UNIDO, World Bank, WIEGO, Women Working Worldwide and Unite. She is on the Advisory Groups of the ILO/IFC Better Work Programme, Traidcraft Board and NIKE EM initiative. Stephanie held a Leverhulme Major Research Fellowship (2013-16) examining gender and global value chains.

24 March 
Sustainability and Social Relations
Lucie Middlemiss (University of Leeds)


I am intrigued by the connections between the way social life is structured (social relations) and people’s access to and consumption of natural resources. In this talk, I will introduce my work in the fields of sustainable consumption, community, and fuel poverty, and relate this back to my central research agenda: what kinds of relationship do we have in late modernity, and how is this intertwined with our consumption of resources? I will start by talking about the concept of individualisation, and explaining the contrast between sustainable development understandings of people’s social relations (focused on promoting participation), with those of social theorists. I will then present my work on fuel poverty, which brings together bottom up understandings of people’s lives in the UK, with a top down critical analysis of English politics of fuel poverty. I argue throughout that understanding how people interact with their family, friends and service providers from the private, public and third sector, is critical in understanding how we can progress towards a more sustainable world.


Lucie Middlemiss is a lecturer at the Sustainability Research Institute in Leeds, where she has worked since 2004, completing her PhD (environmental social sciences) in community-based sustainable consumption in 2009. Lucie is interested in the boundary between social and environmental issues. She has disciplinary roots in sociology, and in recent years has begun to take a more critical approach to sustainability. This has included an increasing engagement with social theory. Lucie is intrigued by the substantial changes observed by social theorists in the late 20th century, and intent on exploring how these might have an impact on sustainability debates. The topics I am interested in include sustainable consumption, sustainable communities, fuel poverty and vulnerability.



Followed by a discussion panel

Tim Foxon; Noam Bergman

31 March
Resource Efficiency, Environmental Policy and Eco-Innovations. Evidence from EU firms
Massimilano Mazzanti (University of Ferrara)


Innovation adoption and diffusion by firms are key pillars for the EU strategy on resource efficiency and the development of a circular economy. The paper presents new and wide EU evidence on the role of environmental policy and green demand drivers to sustain the adoption of resource efficiency oriented eco innovations. It originally implements new estimators to tackle the endogeneity of binary framed policy and demand covariates, which typically characterise firm’s survey data. Results interestingly report that when endogeneity is appropriately tackled, existing environmental policy is the only significant factor behind the adoption of innovations that reduce the use of waste and material. The result is an important piece of knowledge for the setting of a sound and economics-based strategy towards the circular economy.


Massimiliano Mazzanti is full professor of Economic Policy and Lecturer in Macroeconomics; Ecological Economics; Environmental Economics and Policy at the University of Ferrara, Italy. He got his Msc in Environmental & Natural Resources Economics at the Department of Economics, UCL London and a Ph.D. in Economics at the University of Roma Tre. Main research fields and publications deal with environmental policy, economics of innovation, economic performances and innovation, economic evaluation by stated preference techniques, waste management and policy, climate change and development. He is director of the inter university research centre SEEDS - www.sustainability-seeds.org

Followed by a discussion panel

Tim Foxon, Paula Kivima

7 April
Measurement and the changing culture of academic research
Paul Wouters


The rise of new modes of evaluating academic work has substantially changed institutions and cultures of knowledge production. Measurement plays an important role through performance indicators, but the more traditional forms of qualitative assessments (such as the variety of peer review practices) are also under pressure.

This lecture will focus on a particular dimension of these transformations: the way in which 'scientific quality' has become an object of science policy. No longer do policy makers limit themselves to the creation of productive conditions for the academic community. Instead, researchers are requested to account in explicit terms for the quality of their work in globally competitive terms. This has deep implications for the very definition of what counts as quality. In a way, the stakes that were already high have been raised even further.

It is a major concern in all fields of scholarship and research to make sure that scientific work is of the highest quality. Each discipline has dealt with this challenge in specific ways in the recent past. In the humanities, for example, the single author is being displaced by teams, sometimes in combination with more advanced research technologies (eg. digital humanities). This affects what counts as valid scholarship in fundamental ways. Certain behavioral sciences have been plunged in an identity crisis due to fraud cases and “sloppy research practices” (eg. social psychology). The statistical foundation of a large number of scientific observational and intervention studies and clinical trials has been found wanting. This has raised alarming questions about the statistical expertise of researchers. Another type of challenge for the current quality control mechanisms in science is created by the emergence of big data in the natural sciences (eg. astronomy and genomics). Quality criteria are built into data producing instruments and algorithms and may become less transparent. In big data oriented social sciences and humanities, the traditional ways of working are replaced by standardized and open work routines which may contradict existing notions of scientific autonomy and integrity. In addition to field-specific dynamics, the institutional configuration of academic research undermines historically developed definitions of scientific quality. For example, pressures to publish and obtain grants in an early career stage may make it difficult to develop high quality expertise. The rise of public-private partnerships may undermine scientific independence as basis for quality assurance.

These developments have all shaped in sometimes complicated ways how research quality has become an object of science policy. This lecture will explore to what extent the paradigm of 'material semiotics' can contribute to an interdisciplinary theoretical framework to understand how 'quality' is performed in, and by, evaluation processes and assessment systems. Point of departure is the recognition that what counts as quality is not a feature of the evaluated work, but the outcome of the evaluation practice. All successful researchers have developed the skill to know what high quality work is when they see it. But so far, an explicit theory of quality that is able to capture its main components has remained elusive. The philosophy of science has excelled in designing normative theories about the assumed role of “the scientific method” as the basis for the creation of high quality work, but these theories have not survived the test of empirical validation. A number of other theories developed in the sociology of science are unsatisfactory because they are based on circular reasoning. As a result, as John Ziman has argued, we are still saddled with “the legend” of the superiority of “the scientific method”.

This lecture aims to approach the question of the nature of scientific quality in the natural, biomedical and social sciences as well as in the humanities in a naturalistic way, by taking actual scientific and scholarly practice as the framework. We assume that quality is a multiple concept and has different meanings and attributes in different contexts. This multiplicity of meanings can be mapped in relation to the practices in which they are enacted. The resulting discourse about quality is not aimed at replacing the disciplinary quality definitions, but will hopefully enable us to create a new link between how we actually assess research and how we should want to evaluate scientific practices.

Literature: Wouters, Paul. 2016. “Semiotics and Citations.” In Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication, 72–92. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.

2017a. “Bridging the Evaluation Gap.” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 3 (0). Society for Social Studies of Science: 108–18. doi:10.17351/ests2017.115.
2017b. “Eugene Garfield (1925–2017).” Nature 543 (7646): 492–492. doi:10.1038/543492a.


Paul Wouters is professor of scientometrics and director of the Centre for Science and Technology Studies at Leiden University. He has published on the history of the Science Citation Index, on and in scientometrics, and on the way the criteria of scientific quality and relevance have been changed by the use of performance indicators. His PhD thesis "The Citation Culture" (1999) is available here. He has also studied the role of information and information technologies in the creation of new scientific and scholarly knowledge. In this area, he was appointed as leader of two research programs by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences: Networked Research and Digital Information (Nerdi) (2000 - 2005) and The Virtual Knowledge Studio for the Humanities and Social Sciences (VKS) (2005 - 2010). The experiences and insights gained in the VKS were condensed in Virtual Knowledge. Experimenting in the Humanities and Social Sciences, a collection edited in collaboration with Anne Beaulieu, Andrea Scharnhorst and Sally Wyatt (MIT Press 2013). He was Principal Investigator of several European research consortia, among others ACUMEN on research careers and evaluation of individual researchers. Paul was coordinator of the Dutch STS Graduate School Science, Technology, and Modern Culture (WTMC) together with Annemiek Nelis (2001-2005). Currently he is chair of the WTMC board. In 1999, he helped create Onderzoek Nederland, a leading professional journal on Dutch science policy (part of Research Professional) and has since published in the journal. He is a member of the editorial board of Social Studies of Science, Journal of the Association of Information Science and Technology, and Cybermetrics, was member of the Council of the Society for the Social Studies of Science from 2006 to 2008, and sits on various advisory boards of international programs and projects. Currently, he is involved in, among others, the PRINTEGER project on integrity in science, KNOWSCIENCE, the Center for Research Quality and Policy Impact Studies at NIFU in Oslo, and he is member of the program board of the ZonMW program to promote responsible research behaviour.

Background material


Followed by a discussion panel

Ben Martin and Frédérique Bone

28 April
Tech multipliers and living standards in Britain
Neil Lee (London School of Economics)


Urban and regional policymakers invest considerable resources in attracting and developing advanced tradeable sectors such as high-tech industries. The potential multiplier benefits of these industries in local economies is a basic tenet of regional economics, but this idea has recently seen a resurgence of interest. Yet there is little evidence about the impact of these advanced sectors on living standards for those in other sectors, whether employment benefits low skilled local residents, and if any gains survive after taking into account cost of living increases. This paper addresses this gap using data from a panel of UK local labour markets, and a combination of instrumental variables analysis and fixed effects panel data. It investigates first the existence of multiplier effects from a range of advanced industries, before then considering the distributional consequences of associated employment.



Followed by a discussion panel

Alberto Marzucchi, Tommaso Ciarli

5 May
Regulation/Innovation Interactions: Mode 2 Interdisciplinary Research and its Application
Joyce Tait (Innogen Institute, University of Edinburgh)


This talk will reflect on a career spent doing interdisciplinary research, particularly with reference to Michael Gibbons’ and colleagues’ ideas on Mode 2 Knowledge Production. This kind of research poses particular challenges to the organisation of academic institutions and very few interdisciplinary centres have been able to maintain a Mode 2 style of operation for more than 10 – 15 years without being reabsorbed back into the academic disciplinary structure. I will give some examples of research that has followed this approach and reflect briefly on its future place in academic research communities.


Joyce Tait, Director of the Innogen Institute, University of Edinburgh, has an interdisciplinary background in natural and social sciences, covering agrochemical, pharmaceutical and life science industry sectors, including: strategic planning for innovation; governance, risk management, regulation and standards; and stakeholder attitudes and influences. Relevant life science areas include GM and synthetic biology, genetic databases, pharmaceuticals, regenerative medicine, stratified and translational medicine. Current appointments include: Member, UK Higher Education Funding Bodies Interdisciplinary Research Advisory Panel; UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) Synthetic Biology Leadership Council (and Chair of its Governance Subgroup); Scientific Advisory Board, John Innes Centre; and Governing Board of the Industrial Biotechnology Innovation Centre, University of Strathclyde.

Followed by a discussion panel

Ohid Yaqub, Cian O'Donavan


Summary: https://www.bsigroup.com/LocalFiles/en-GB/PAS/Homepage/Summary%20Report%20-%20Executive%20summary%20-%20final.pdf
Full report: https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/about-bsi/uk-national-standards-body/BIS-Exploring-new-areas-with-government-funding/Governanceofinnovativetechnologies/

Autumn 2016
30 September
Science, the state, and the city
Michael Hopkins & Sir Geoffrey Owen (SPRU & LSE)


The book examines the evolution of one of the most important technologies that has emerged in the last fifty years: biotechnology - the use of living organisms, or parts thereof to create useful products and services. The most important application of biotechnology has been in medicine, in the development of new drugs. The central purpose of the book is to explain how firms based in the US took the lead in commercialising the technology, and why it has been so difficult for firms in other countries to match what the leading American companies have achieved. The book looks at the institutions and policies which have underpinned US success in biotechnology. This is the US innovation "ecosystem," and it is made up of several interlocking elements which constitute a powerful competitive advantage for US biotechnology firms. These include, a higher education system which has close links with industry, massive support from the Federal government for biomedical research, and a financial system which is well equipped to support young entrepreneurial firms in a science-based industry. In the light of US experience the book examines in detail the performance of UK biotechnology firms over the past forty years, starting with the creation of the UK's first dedicated biotech firm, Celltech, in 1980. The book shows how the UK made a promising start in the 1980s and 1990s but failed to build on it. Several leading firms failed, and after an initial burst of enthusiasm investors lost confidence in the British biotech sector. It is only the last few years that the sector has staged a revival, attracting fresh investment from the US as well from the UK. The story told in this book, based on extensive interviews with industry participants, investors, and policy makers in the UK, Continental Europe, and the US, sheds new light on one of the central issues facing governments in the advanced industrial countries - how to create and sustain new science-based industries.


Sir Geoffrey Owen was educated at Rugby and Balliol College, Oxford, and spent most of his career at the Financial Times, serving as industrial editor, US correspondent based in New York, deputy editor (1973-1980) editor (1980-1990) - also spent two years with the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation and three with British Leyland. He joined the LSE in 1990, served as visiting fellow in the Department of Management until 2013, teaching in the field of corporate strategy and international competition. Books include From Empire to Europe: the decline and revival of British industry since the Second Word War (HarperCollins 1999).) The rise and fall of great companies: Courtaulds and the reshaping of the man-made fibres industry (OUP 2010).

Dr. Michael Hopkins is a Senior Lecturer and Director of Research for the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex. After studying Biology at Sussex, he worked in the biotechnology industry as a sales and marketing manager, selling reagents for research. He joined SPRU as a research assistant in 1997, later completing his doctoral training in Science and Technology Policy Studies. His research focuses on policies and strategies for biomedical innovation.



Followed by a discussion panel

Featuring: Fredderique Lang, Josh Siepel; Josh Hutton 

7 October 2016
People first PPPs for UN SDGs
Geoffrey Hamilton (UNECE)


The new 2030 Agenda agreed in 2015 and to be implemented up until 2030 is extremely ambitious and is nothing less than a manifesto for the future of the planet. The preferred implementation vehicle to achieve the goals is set out in SDG 17 entitled the ‘Revitalisation of the Partnership for Sustainable Development’. And People-first Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) ensures that out of all stakeholders, ‘people’ are on the top. People-first Public-Private Partnerships must be evaluated according to a new set of criteria which can be perceived and actually are “quality investments”. Such criteria are tentatively defined as: “accessibility”; “equity”; “efficiency”; and “replicability”.


Geoffrey Hamilton is Chief, of the Cooperation and Partnerships Section of the Economic Cooperation and Integration Division with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in Geneva. His current responsibility is promoting public-private partnerships for infrastructure development where he leads the UNECE International PPP Centre of Excellence and a programme on building the capacity of governments to undertake successful projects. His other interests include Good governance, FDI issues, the economic aspects to peace building and security, property rights for the poor and the protection of intellectual property for innovation. Before joining the UNECE he has worked in several international organizations including the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, International Labour Office, the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Institute for Research on Multinational Enterprises. He holds a PhD and a Masters from the University of Glasgow, Scotland.

Followed by a discussion panel

Featuring: Paul Nightingale, Jenny Lieu; Chantal Naidoo

14 October
The New Production of Users: Changing involvement strategies and innovation collectives
Sampsa Hyysalo (Aalto University)


Behind the steady stream of new products, technologies, systems and services in our modern societies there is a prolonged and complicated battle around the role of users. How should designers get to know the users’ interests and needs? Who should speak for the users? How may designers collaborate with users and in what ways may users take innovation into their own hands?
User involvement has changed significantly since early 2000s when it rose to prominence in academic and policy arenas. The presentation discusses the emerging involvement strategies and innovation collectives that amount to “new production of users” in business and citizen contexts. It is based on a recent book edited by Hyysalo, Jensen and Oudshoorn, which analyses the challenges in the practical collaborations between designers and users and investigates a number of cases, where groups of users collectively took charge of innovation. It further links these to the history of designer-user relations from the era of mass production to the present days.
The key messages of the book are fourfold. First it has become a ‘fact of life’ that users have significant productive capabilities, and these are exercised widely in society. Second, user involvement has become a key object of industrial strategizing: there are increasing efforts to produce productive users. Third, active users, designers and managers all operate in a landscape where the methods and resources for user involvement are widely available. Fourth, empowerment through user involvement can still happen, but not by default.


Sampsa Hyysalo is associate professor in CoDesign, Aalto School of ARTS, Finland. His research focuses on role of users in sociotechnical change, in the recent years particularly in the context of sustainability transition and renewable energy technologies. Sampsa’s work combines science & technology studies, innovation studies and design research. He received his phd in behavioural sciences in Univ. Helsinki in 2004, and has published about 50 articles and book chapters. He has also authored several books, the most important ones being “Health Technology Development and Use: From practice-bound Imagination to evolving Impacts (Routledge, 2010) and “The new production of users: Changing innovation communities and involvement strategies” (with Elgaard Jensen and Oudshoorn, Routledge, 2016), which won the EASST 2016 Freeman award for advancing interaction between S&TS and innovation studies. Sampsa has been the chief/coordinating editor to EASST official journal “Science & Technology Studies” since 2007 and was awarded the Academy of Finland price for social impact of research in 2010.


(PASSWORD PROTECTED FOR UOS ONLY): https://www.dropbox.com/s/dsp4ay8ww355ivh/Hyysalo_The%20New%20Production%20of%20Users_Ch1.pdf?dl=0

21 October
Structure of the resource space, types of higher education institutions and the poor performance of European universities in science
Benedetto Lepori


The aim of this paper is to develop theoretically and to test empirically the connection between the structure of resource allocation, the emergence of research universities and scientific excellence in European higher education. To this aim, we develop a theory-based typology of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) based on two dimensions of differentiation, i.e. their activity profile (education vs. research) and the subject scope (generalist vs. specialist). By testing this typology on a large sample of European HEIs derived from the European Tertiary Education Register, we demonstrate that there are systematic differences between types in their activity profile and in the level and composition of funding, therefore providing evidence that types are associated with different market positioning. Specifically, we are able to identify a small group of research universities, characterized by a much higher level of research volume and intensity than the rest of the sample; we show that this type is characterized by a volume of funding far higher than all other HEIs in the sample, suggesting that their emergence is critically linked to the concentration of funding. Exectedly, the research university type shows a much stronger association with research excellence, as measured by the percentage of top-cited publications, than the mixed type, which constitutes the core of European higher education. This supports the assumption that the lack of differentiation of research universities is responsible for the poor performance of European higher education in top science.


Prof. Benedetto Lepori holds a PhD in Communication Sciences with a thesis on the Swiss research and higher education policy at the University of Lugano in 2004. At the University of Lugano, he is titular professor at the Faculty of Communication science, Institute of Interdisciplinary Data Sciences.

His research interests cover a broad range of topics in research and higher education studies. He is a recognized specialists in the analysis of research policies and, especially, public research funding. In this area, he coordinated the PRIME project on public project funding and he was co-coordinator of the European Contract on Joint and Open Programs (JOREP). He also worked extensively in the domain of higher education indicators and governance; he participated to PRIME-AQUAMETH and the European MIcroData study, while he is currently coordinator of the European Tertiary Education Register (ETER). He was also chair of the European Network of Indicator Designers conference series and he is currently member of the Coordination Board of the RISIS project on developing research infrastructure for research policy studies. More generally, he worked extensively on issues of higher education governance, university management and theory of S&T indicators.

He published extensively on these topics on journals like Organization Studies, Research Policy, Science and Public Policy, Research Evaluation, Evaluation, Journal of Informetrics, Scientometrics, Higher Education and Studies in Higher Education



28 October
Tools, Rules and Joules: Negotiating the co-evolution of technology, policy and future electricity systems
Elizabeth Wilson


Demands for the creation of sustainable energy systems are fueling the growth of wind and solar technologies and reshaping electricity generation. These technology and policy drivers are also changing how electricity systems are planned and operated. Policymakers, planners, and grid operators are working to integrate variable renewable resources while maintaining system reliability and affordability. These actors need to innovate organizationally to achieve both regional integration and decarbonization, which can be difficult. I will present a comparative study on innovations in renewables integration taking place in the Midwest and Western United States. This study focuses on negotiations within two regional transmission organizations and highlights the governance challenges for renewables integration. By comparing the recent California Independent System Operator (CAISO) initiative to create an energy imbalance market (EIM) and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) negotiations necessary to develop the dispatchable intermittent resources (DIR) program, we provide a detailed examination of renewable energy policy implementation in practice. As grid operators in both systems work to improve renewable resource integration while maintaining reliability, affordability, and improving system efficiencies, this comparative study highlights the importance of policy drivers and institutional negotiations which are altering the distribution of benefits and burdens among stakeholders involved in the electric power system. In doing so, this work outlines the evolving political and institutional challenges requiring more coordination, policy innovation, and new institutional paradigms shaping electricity system governance.


Dr. Elizabeth J. Wilson is a Professor of Energy and Environmental Policy and Law at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota. She studies how energy systems are changing in the face of new technologies and new societal pressures. Her work focuses on the implementation of energy and environmental policies and laws in practice. She is interested in how institutions support and thwart energy system transitions and focuses on the interplays between technology innovation, policy creation, and institutional decision making. Her recent books include Energy Law and Policy (West Academic Publishing) (with Davies, Klass, Tomain and Osofsky) and Smart Grid (R)evolution: Electric Power Struggles (Cambridge Press) (with Stephens and Peterson). Wilson’s research group is working on an NSF supported grant on decision making in Regional Transmission Organizations.

Wilson was recently awarded a 2015 Andrew Carnegie Fellowship and is spending the 2016-7 academic year at the Danish Technical University. She was selected as a 2014-5 CIC Academic Leadership Fellow. She was chosen as a Leopold Leadership Fellow in 2011. She spent the 2009-2010 academic year as a visiting professor at Tsinghua University, in Beijing, supported by McKnight Land-Grant Professorship. Prior to joining the University of Minnesota she worked with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and before that Wilson worked in Belgium, Burundi and Tanzania. She holds a doctorate in Engineering and Public Policy


Paper 1: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629616301220
Paper 2: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2659343

Followed by a discussion panel

Featuring: Emily Cox; Cian O'Donovan; Tomás Saieg;

2 November
Ecosystem service governance: innovating for, or with, practice
Eeva Primmer (SYKE, Finnish Environment Institute)


The protection and sustainable use of natural environment in coupled human-environment systems is increasingly framed with the concept ecosystem services. The ecosystem services concept has been driven by academic research, with an aim to bridge the understanding of the complex ecological functions and the ways in which we depend on and benefit from ecosystems. Less empirical attention has been paid to ways in which decisions are made or how policy meets practice or, in general, how ecosystem services are governed. Building on the research agenda, there is now a call for further innovation, to make use of the acquired knowledge; in particular to manage risks, develop green infrastructure and sustainable business through so called nature based solutions.

This talk draws on a recent paper (Primmer et al., 2015) that identifies different modes of governance, namely: (1) hierarchical governance; (2) scientific-technical governance; (3) adaptive collaborative governance; and; (4) governing strategic behavior. Linking these modes of governance to the current expectations on nature based solutions, the talk synthesizes recent literature and challenges (& hopefully inspires) analysts and decision-makers who are involved in generating innovations with an aim to secure sustainable ecosystem service provision.


Eeva Primmer is a Research Professor in Environmental Policy and the Head of the Environmental Governance Unit at the Finnish Environment Institute. With a background in forestry, Eeva has conducted research on forest and biodiversity conservation policy and institutions, with a focus on professional practices and networks as well as policy implementation and multi-level governance. Extending her recent extensive work on ecosystem services governance, she is now increasingly addressing also energy system governance.

Eeva derives her ideas of sustainability, and the key role that people play in securing it, from her childhood on a farm in Southern Finland and in a small town in the Western Province of Zambia. In her everyday life, Eeva enjoys her 3-hour bike-train-walk commute (and back), the conversations with her smart (sometimes too smart) teenagers and husband as well as the walks with the little poodle-puppy.)



Followed by a discussion panel

Saurabh Arora; Mari Martiskainen; Chiara Fratini

11 November
A typology of upscaling in the sharing economy: socio-technical enablers and constraints
Vadim Grinevich (University of Southampton)


This paper examines what enables and constrains upscaling, understood as expanding the customer base and the target geographies, in the sharing economy from an integrated business, technological and socio-spatial perspective. First, it conceptualises the sharing economy in three dimensions by elaborating on business model innovation, socio-technical digital platform design and geographical embeddedness. Second, the paper develops a novel typology of upscaling patterns including “born global”, “local value potentially global”, “local infrastructure as product services” and “co-created services”. The analysis is based on 30 semi-structured interviews with the founders and senior managers of UK sharing platforms in three sectors and an analysis of platform web sites.


Dr Vadim Grinevich is Associate Professor of Strategy and Innovation, and Director of Graduate School at the University of Southampton Faculty of Business, Law and Art. His research interests include economics of innovation and entrepreneurship, innovation management, service and business model innovation (e. g. sharing economy models), academic entrepreneurship and university-industry links, knowledge transfer, and spatial dimensions of innovation and entrepreneurship. Vadim's current research is funded by the British Academy and Newton Fund, the EPSRC Institutional Sponsorship Scheme, the Web Science Institute, and the European Commission. Vadim’s recent work on the sharing economy has received national and international recognition, with leading thinks tanks and institutions (such as NESTA, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, European Commission, among others) inviting him to share his research and opinion on the sharing economy. He was also chairing the organising and scientific committee of the 2016 International Workshop on the Sharing Economy, which is part of the only Academic Workshop Series in the world specifically devoted to the issues of the sharing economy. Vadim was previously based at University of Suffolk and University of Cambridge, working on projects funded by EPSRC, ESRC, NESTA, UK and Northern Ireland government departments, the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Japan, and the Australian Business Foundation. He was a Visiting Professor at the Economics Department at Tilburg University and a Regional Research Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, D.C. Vadim holds an MPhil degree in Planning, Growth and Regeneration and a PhD in Management Studies, both from the University of Cambridge. He also holds a candidate degree in Economic Theory from the Lomonosov Moscow State University.



18 November
What participatory action-research can say to the socio-technical transition framework?
Alejandra Boni (INGENIO, UPV)


The aim of this seminar is to illustrate the potential of participatory video, a specific participatory action-research methodology to contribute to the socio technical transition debate. Our main argument is if the aim of the socio technical transition is looking forward a systemic change towards a more sustainable and equitable future, the way in which we do research matters. Not only the outputs of our research should have the potential of highlighting pathways more sustainable and equitable, but also the process. In this sense, participatory action-research (PAR) can contribute in both dimension, results and process, to the socio-technical transitions. We will illustrate this debate from our PAR’s experience using participatory video with grassroots innovators in Valencia (Spain)


Alejandra Boni is Associate Professor at the Universitat Politécnica de València, Spain. Research fellow at INGENIO (CSIC-UPV). Honorary Professor of the University of the Free State, South Africa. Vice-president of the International Development Ethics Association. Her research interest are human development, higher education, collective social innovation, participation, development education and communication for social change. @sandraboni4


Background material: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18M7qYEAa7E
Background material (PASSWORD PROTECTED): https://www.dropbox.com/s/1r22n3zedb36wzm/Boni_STI2016_Boni_etal_full_paper_def.doc?dl=0

25 November
Industrial Development and Policy in South Africa: Why is There Not More Success?
Sam Ashman (University of Johannesburg / SOAS)


South Africa remains the most industrialized economy in Africa and so its development has important regional and continental implications. Socio-economic development since the defeat of apartheid and the introduction of democracy in 1994 has been disappointing, with much contemporary debate focusing on the triple crises of poverty, unemployment and inequality. Despite a shift in thinking to a more interventionist Industrial Policy from 2007 onwards - predating the more general ‘return’ of Industrial Policy discussion across the continent and elsewhere - the manufacturing sector remains weak and poorly diversified, with little expansion of low skilled, labour absorbing industries. Considerable obstacles face South Africa’s Industrial Policy. The paper examines what it argues are the four key obstacles to the creation of a more diversified, and employment generating, economic base:

i.) The macroeconomic policy framework which has, amongst other things, facilitated extensive corporate restructuring that has resulted in extensive capital flight in both legal and illegal forms. Legal in the form of shareholder dividends facilitated by overseas relisting and illegal particularly through widespread transfer pricing;

ii.) Financialization. The financial sector has trebled in size since the defeat of apartheid but its supposed growth and employment enhancing effects have not been felt. Instead a lack of long term productive investment as non-financial corporations have shifted strategies has been combined with short term portfolio inflows which have bloated the financial sector, boosted debt driven consumption and jobless growth;

iii.) Continuing dependence on primary commodity exports now in the context of the global collapse of commodity prices, combined with China’s ‘repositioning’ in the world economy, which has produced serious crises for both mining and the steel industry. This has is having a major impact upon manufacturing as many important sub-sectors of manufacturing, like metals and metal products, are dependent upon mining for demand;

iv.) Neo-patrimonialism, as revealed in the debate around ‘state capture’, revealing that, in the context of weak general accumulation, state resources are, in large parts of the state, a means to ensure the loyalty of clients and to promote class/elite formation rather than structural change.

The paper is structured in the following way. Firstly, we discuss industrial policy and the economic legacy of apartheid. Secondly, we look at the two major periods of Industrial Policy since 1994. Thirdly, we examine the factors outlined above. Fourthly, we draw some brief conclusions.


Sam Ashman is Associate Professor in the Department of Economics and Econometrics at the University of Johannesburg. She is the Director of the university’s MPhil Programme in Industrial Policy which is run in partnership with the UN’s African Institute for Economic Development and Planning (IDEP) in Senegal. Her research interests revolve around financialization and changes in the global economy, post-apartheid economic development, economic development and the role of the state, and industrial policy.

Followed by a discussion panel

Chantal Naidoo, Raphie Kaplinsky and Garth Williams

2 December
Standardising the City: Constructing a Universal Platform
Simon Marvin (University of Sheffield)


The International Standards Organisation (ISO) is currently coordinating the formulation of a new set of international standards on smart cities. Drawing on the sociology of standards (Timmermans and Epstein, 2010; Lampland and Leigh-Star, 2009), alongside critical literature on the development of standards rules and codes for urban development, the paper tracks the most recent attempt to create ‘the standard city’. The paper is critically examines three issues. First, we show that much of the effort to develop smart city standards is only partially focused on setting the “technical” standards of the interoperability of systems, hardware and software necessary for the implementation of smart cities. Second, instead the focus of standard setting is on three other issues: – a. defining a data ontology for how urban authorities collect and manage data, b. establishing a framework for specifying how urban authorities develop priorities and purposes for smart technologies and c. formulating processes for the specification and purchasing of smart city software products. Third, the paper shows how smart city standards are less concerned with technological standards and instead more focused on developing a standardised and mobile framework of urban governmental control that reconfigures the urban context to make it amenable to the specification, purchase and implementation of software products. We conclude by arguing that the purposes of standards is to actually reconfigure urban contexts to match the technological and commercial presuppositions of software products and thereby establish a universal logic of urban control.


Professor Simon Marvin, Director of the Urban Institute University of Sheffield.
My work is noted for the way it develops innovative, interdisciplinary perspectives to help open up and explore important new agendas for urban and planning research. To date, I have played major roles within urban and planning research towards addressing important questions surrounding telecommunications, infrastructure and mobility, sustainability and, most recently, systemic transitions, climate change and ecological security. My research work has been focused on the reconceptualization of urban infrastructure within a socio-technical, politically networked analysis; empirically rich, critical geographies of urban sustainability policies in practice; and providing leadership in the development of critical studies of ‘smart cities’. Collectively, this work has had major global influence within urban planning, urban studies, architecture, geography, technology studies, environmental studies and urban planning.


(PASSWORD PROTECTED): https://www.dropbox.com/s/ex85wqoru6e3baf/Marvin_UOS%20IJURR%20%20FINAL%20SUBMISSION.pdf?dl=0

Followed by a discussion panel

Featuring; Lucy Baker; Kat Lovell; Adrian Smith.

9 December
The ARPA-E Model of Energy Innovation in Context
Laura Diaz Anadon (University of Cambridge and Harvard University)


Accelerating the development and deployment of energy technologies is a pressing challenge from environmental, economic and security perspectives. Much of the international academic and policy conversation on energy innovation in the wake of the COP-21 Paris Agreement a year ago has focused on the size of public and private investments in energy (e.g., Mission Innovation and the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, respectively), the question of ‘how much’. This seminar will focus on what we know about the effectiveness (measured in different ways) of various types of U.S. energy R&D policies involving the private sector, the ‘how’. It will first lay out the landscape of public energy R&D performing organizations and funding mechanisms in the United States, which include the U.S. National Laboratories, cooperative agreements with industries, grants to small businesses, and the relatively new addition, ARPA-E. The existing evidence points to specific ways in which practices at the US National Labs may be improved and the short-term positive impacts of cooperative agreements, SBIR grants, and ARPA-E on small businesses and startups. The talk will conclude the current ecosystem of policies and analysis available raise broader and pressing questions about how to measure benefits, how to maintain long-term support, how to balance between different policies, and the gaps that still exist.


My work is noted for the way it develops innovative, interdisciplinary perspectives to help open up and explore important new agendas for urban and planning research. To date, I have played major roles within urban and planning research towards addressing important questions surrounding telecommunications, infrastructure and mobility, sustainability and, most recently, systemic transitions, climate change and ecological security. My research work has been focused on the reconceptualization of urban infrastructure within a socio-technical, politically networked analysis; empirically rich, critical geographies of urban sustainability policies in practice; and providing leadership in the development of critical studies of ‘smart cities’. Collectively, this work has had major global influence within urban planning, urban studies, architecture, geography, technology studies, environmental studies and urban planning.

Background material

Followed by a discussion panel

Mariana Mazzucato; Ben Martin; Florian Kern.


Spring and summer terms 2016
5 February
Innovation and energy governance: lessons to be learned from New York State? 
Catherine Mitchell (Exeter University)


Some energy systems are changing rapidly as a result of a complex mix of economics, technologies, public policies, social preferences and more supportive governance. Other energy systems may be altering in some ways but fundamentally, in terms of ownership and practice, little has changed. New York is attempting to fundamentally restructure its energy system through something called the New York Reforming the Energy Vision (NY REV) – please see here for background http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/igov/new-thinking-reforming-the-energy-vision-an-update/ . Germany on the other hand while making some alterations to direction, is pretty much following a steady-as-she-goes approach. What lessons are there to be learned for GB?  


Catherine Mitchell is Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Exeter. Previously she worked at the Universities of Warwick, Sussex and California, Berkeley. She holds a PhD from SPRU, Sussex University in Technology and Innovation Policy.
Catherine holds an Established Career Fellowship with the EPSRC (2012-2016) on the relationship between innovation and governance, and led an ESRC/EPSRC interdisciplinary research cluster into Energy Security in a Multi-Polar World (2008-2013).
She is on the Chair of the Regulatory Assistance Project; is on the Board of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, the Centre for Sustainable Energy, and is a Member of IPPRs Policy Advisory Committee.
Catherine was a Lead Author in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, a Co-ordinating Lead Author of the IPCC’s Special Report on Renewable Energy and Climate Change Mitigation (published in 2011); and a Lead Analyst on the Global Energy Assessment undertaken through the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) published in 2012.
She has served on several panels advising the government, including the Energy Advisory Panel (1998-2003), the Balancing and Settlement Code Panel (2008-2010), the Academic Advisory Panel to DECC for Electricity Market Reform (2010), and DECC’s Distributed Generation Advisory Panel (2012). She chaired the British Institute of Energy Economics in 2009-10, and has advised numerous national and international companies, NGOs and institutions on various aspects of the transition to a sustainable energy system.

Background info

12 February
Small-town India’s waste economy
Barbara Harriss-White (South Asia Research Cluster, Wolfson College, Oxford University)


All economic activity produces waste in some form or other. Waste is understood to be substances emanating from the production-distribution-consumption-reproduction system that have no value to capital - a lack of value that may be brief or last 500m years. Waste is India’s fastest growing sector and India’s peak waste is predicted to be a century hence. Earlier this year I put an imaginary line around a small town (70k pop) in S. India and scoped the social relations of waste. In this presentation, I’ll focus on two aspects of the small-town waste economy: the formal-informal interface; and the dynamics of social discrimination. Neither are peculiar to Indian conditions and the conditions in this case study pose very considerable challenges to technology and to policy. So the presentation may have wider relevance.


Barbara Harriss-White drove to India in 1969 and has been researching India’s rural development through field-work and teaching it ever since. She is Emeritus Professor of Development Studies at Oxford University, former director of Queen Elizabeth House and former founder-director of Oxford’s Contemporary South Asian Studies Programme. She has supervised 41 PhDs, (co) authored/edited over 40 books and research reports and published nearly 250 journal papers /book chapters. In 2009 she won the Edgar Graham prize for originality in Development Studies with her book ‘Rural Commercial Capital’. 2015 has been unusual for books: Indian Capitalism in Development (Routledge, (ed) with Judith Heyer)); Mapping India’s Capitalism: old and new regions (Palgrave, (ed) with Elizabetta Basile and Christine Lutringer); and Middle India and Urban-Rural Development: four decades of change (Springer).




19 February
Lancaster without electricity and practices without power: reflections on disruption, dependencies and demand
Gordon Walker (Lancaster University)


On 5th December 2015 Storm Desmond swept across the North West of England, its rainfall streaming into already swollen rivers and into roads, homes and businesses across the region. In Lancaster the River Lune broke the record for the highest flow of water ever recorded in the UK, overtopping flood defences and flowing into, amongst much else, the main electricity sub-station for the City. Grid-bound electricity disappeared at 10.30pm on Saturday evening, remained absent for 30 hours, returned at 6.00am on Monday as over 60 generators were connected up to local substations, failed again over much of the City late afternoon, and eventually returned in a more permanent but fragile condition on Tuesday. The phalanx of generators stayed in place for about a week until full national grid supply was restored. This was an extended event, a ‘blackout’, a crisis, rarely experienced on a City scale in the UK.
In this paper I provide some preliminary analysis of what can be learnt from the absence of normal electricity due to this instance of big technological system and infrastructural failure, drawing on my own reflections but also of colleagues in the DEMAND Centre and other parts of Lancaster University (which itself experienced a difficult case of crisis management). David Nye (2010) argues that ‘blackouts’ are carved out of the normal flow of time, a social experience creating ‘a new kind of social space’. They are revealing not just of normally hidden infrastructures (cables, substations, security systems, communication systems) but also of the creeping panoply of electrical dependencies, the ‘latent dysfunctionalities’ of the contemporary city and of the exercise of power through power.
I will explore some of these ideas and particularly focus on what ‘blackouts’, and the Lancaster case in particular, can tell us about the constitution and patterning of energy demand. Starting from a conceptualisation of energy as a material ‘ingredient’ of everyday social practice (Shove and Walker 2014), I consider what happens when this ingredient is missing - when expected energy is not there in order to power technologies which are integral to doing things in particular ways, in particular places, times, sequences and synchronisations? How vital an ingredient is electricity for enabling which practices and for which practitioners, and what, now, are the key fragilities of systemic dysfunctionality? Where are the dependencies, adaptabilities, substitutabilities and vulnerabilities which differentiate the experience of disruption? And when the electricity grid as an ongoing technical achievement becomes unstable, what cannot be sustained and what becomes most important to secure? In starting to work through these questions I will also reflect on the nature of demand itself, which never went away during the blackout and returned strikingly intact in its aftermath as social order, social routines and normally followed space-time pathways were reinstated. 


Professor Gordon Walker is Co-Director of the DEMAND Centre (Dynamics of Energy, Mobility and Demand) at Lancaster University, funded by the RCUK Energy Programme. He has expertise on the social and spatial dimensions of sustainable energy technologies, sustainability transitions, sustainable social practices and cross cutting issues and theories of energy and environmental justice. He has led a series of multi-partner projects funded by UK research councils and government departments focused on the dynamics of energy demand, community energy, fuel and energy poverty, zero carbon housing, energy use in care settings, fuel poverty, renewable energy and public engagement and flooding and resilience. His books include ‘Environmental Justice: concepts, evidence and politics’ (Routledge, 2012) and as co-editor ‘Energy Justice in a Changing Climate: social equity and low carbon energy’ (Zed 2013).

Background info:

Reflections on the Lancaster power cuts of December 2015

26 February
Grand Challenges in US Science Policy Attempt Policy Innovation
Diana Hicks(School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology)


This paper investigates the historical development of the Grand Challenges concept in US science policy. The concept originated in advocacy for funding for high performance computing by Kenneth G. Wilson, a physics Nobel laureate, and was enshrined in the High Performance Computing Act of 1991. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Grand Challenges in Global Health program marked a second milestone in the application of the concept to US science funding. The National Academy of Engineering’s Grand Challenges in Engineering followed in 2008. Most recently the White House has pursued programs under the Grand Challenges rubric. The history of these varied initiatives spanning 40 years is examined here to identify core elements and continuity as well as to explore the relationship between innovation and tradition in U.S. science policy.


Dr. Diana Hicks is Professor in the School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA specializing in metrics for science and technology policy. She was the first author on the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics published in Nature which has been translated into eight languages, see www.leidenmanifesto.org. Her work has been supported by and has informed policy makers in the U.S., Europe and Japan. She has advised the OECD and the governments of Flanders, the Czech Republic and Sweden on national research evaluation systems. She chaired the School of Public Policy for 10 years from 2003. She co-chairs the international Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy and is an editor of Research Evaluation. As Senior Policy Analyst at CHI Research between 1998 and 2003 she conducted policy analyses for Federal research agencies using patent and paper databases. Prof. Hicks has also taught at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley; SPRU, University of Sussex, and worked at the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP) in Tokyo. Dr. Hicks earned her D.Phil and M.Sc. from SPRU, University of Sussex.


4 March
Knowledge Creation and Intellectual Property Management for Development and the Public Interest
Leonardo Burlamaqui Cunha (State University of Rio de Janeiro)


The core point of this paper is the hypothesis that in the field of knowledge creation and intellectual property protection, the last four decades witnessed a big change. The boundaries of private (or corporate) interests have been hyper-expanded while the public domain has significantly contracted. It tries to show that this is detrimental to innovation diffusion and productivity growth. The paper develops the argument theoretically, fleshes it out with some empirical evidence and provides a few policy recommendations on how to redesign the frontiers between public and private spaces in order to produce a more democratic and development-oriented institutional landscape. The proposed analytical perspective developed here, “Knowledge Governance”, aims to provide a framework within which, in the field of knowledge creation and diffusion, the dividing line between private interests and the public domain ought to be redrawn. The paper’s key goal is to provide reasoning for a set of rules, regulatory redesign and institutional coordination that would favor the commitment to distribute (disseminate) over the right to exclude.


Leonardo Burlamaqui is an Associate Professor at the Department of Economic Evolution, State University of Rio de Janeiro, a Research Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute – Bard College (New York), an Adjunct Professor at Graduate Program in Public Policies and Development Strategies at the Federal University at Rio de Janeiro and a member of the International Joseph Schumpeter Society. Previously (2006-14) he was a Senior Program Officer at The Ford Foundation in New York, directing the Reforming Global Financial Governance initiative. He has a PhD in Economics, awarded by the Federal University at Rio de Janeiro.
His books include The Present and the Future of Development Financial Institutions : Theory and History, ( MINDS/BNDES 2015, co-edited with Rogerio Sobreira and Matheus Vianna); Financial Stability and Growth – Perspectives on Financial Regulation and New Developmentalism; ( Routledge, 2014, co-edited with Luis Carlos Bresser Pereira and Jan Kregel) ); Politicas Macroecnòmicas y Regulación Financera en America Latina: Un Estudio Comparado ( CEDES, 2014, co-editado con Roberto Frenkel,Mario Damill y Edoardo Corso); Knowledge Governance- Reasserting the Public Interest (Anthem Press, 2012, co-edited with Ana Célia Castro and Rainer Kattel); Institutions and the Role of State (E. Elgar, 2000, co-edited with Ana Célia Castro and Ha-Joon Chang, and Organized Capitalism in Japan (IPEA/CEPAL, 1991, co-authored with Maria da Conceição Tavares and Ernani Torres).
His papers include the include the chapter “Global Finance and Chinese Financial Governance” in China in Transformation (Ministry of Planning IPEA- BR, Brazil ,2015, the paper “Finance, Development and the Chinese Entrepreneurial State: A Schumpeter- Keynes – Minsky Approach” in Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, October , 2015; the chapter “Development Theory: Convergence, Catch-up or Leapfrogging (co-authored with Rainer Kattel) in Papadimitriou, D, ed: Contributions to Economic Theory Policy, Development and Finance. Essays in honor of J A Kregel (Palgrave, 2014); the chapter “Industrial Policy and IPRs: A Knowledge Governance Approach” (co-authored with Mario Cimoli) in J Stiglitz et Alii eds: Intellectual Property Rights: Legal and Economic Challenges for Development (Oxford University Press, 2014); “ Knowledge Governance, Innovation and Development” in the Brazilian Journal of Political Economy (Fall 2010); “ Governing Finance and Knowledge , in Homo Oeconomicos special number: “ Schumpeter for Our Time” ( Sping,2010), the chapter “Innovation, Competition Policies and Intellectual Property -An Evolutionary Perspective and its Policy Implications” in The Development Agenda; Global Intellectual Property and Developing Countries , edited by Neil Netanel and published by Oxford University Press (2009).
His forthcoming publications include the papers “Assessing Divergent Development Trajectories: Schumpeterian Competition, Finance and Financial Governance” (co-authored with Rainer Kattel) in Revista Brasileira de Inovação, January-July 2016; “Development as Leapfrogging, Not Convergence, Not Catch-up” (co-authored with Rainer Kattel), in Review of Political Economy, spring 2016; and the books Financial Institutions for Innovation and Development – A cross country study (Edited with William Lazonick, 2016) and Schumpeter’s Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy: A Twenty First Century Update ( Edited with Rainer Kattel, Routledge , 2017)


Knowledge Creation and Intellectual Property Management for Development and the Public Interest

11 March
Sustainable energy for all: innovation, technology and pro-poor green transformations
David Ockwell and Rob Byrne (Global studies and SPRU, UoS)


Despite decades of effort and billions of dollars spent, two thirds of the people in sub-Saharan Africa still lack access to electricity, a vital pre-cursor to economic development and poverty reduction. Ambitious international policy commitments seek to address this, but scholarship has failed to keep pace with policy ambitions, lacking both the empirical basis and the theoretical perspective to inform such transformative policy aims.
In this presentation, we elaborate our claim that scholarship is failing policy. But, going beyond this critique, we identify ways in which a new theoretical perspective based on socio-technical innovation system building could redress this failure. We offer potential elements of this new perspective and, drawing on historical analysis of the Kenyan solar PV market, show how it could be operationalised for policy and practice. Finally, we outline an agenda for research, and for policy and practice, that arises from this new perspective.
Although our argument is articulated in detail in a book to be published by Routledge in June 2016, we recognise that the work is only a beginning. In this regard, then, the seminar provides an opportunity for us to offer these ideas for critical review, and hope that others will engage with us in an endeavour to develop a useful academic contribution to the challenge of realising pro-poor pathways of sustainable energy access.


David Ockwell is Senior Lecturer in Geography at the University of Sussex. He is also Deputy Director (Research) of the ESRC STEPS Centre, a Senior Fellow in the Sussex Energy Group at SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research) and a Fellow of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. David's teaching, doctoral supervision and applied policy work focuses on climate and energy policy with a particular emphasis on low carbon technology transfer and development, and on public engagement with climate change. Through this work he has provided policy advice to various inter-governmental organisations (including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat, African Development Bank, Commonwealth Secretariat and OECD Environment Directorate) and governmental departments in developed and developing countries (including the UK, India and Chile).

Rob Byrne is a Lecturer in SPRU (Science Policy Research Unit) at the University of Sussex. With David Ockwell, Rob co-convenes the Energy and Climate Research Domain of the ESRC STEPS Centre. He is also a Research Fellow in the Sussex Energy Group and a Fellow of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Rob sits on the board of the Low Carbon Energy for Development Network and is a member of Climate Strategies. His research is focussed on sustainable energy access and poverty reduction, especially in East African contexts. Rob is also engaged in policy advice, including consulting with various bilateral and multilateral agencies and institutions such as DFID, DECC, the World Bank, the UNFCCC Secretariat and Technology Mechanism, and African Development Bank, amongst others.


Sustainable energy for all: innovation, technology and pro-poor green transformations [PDF 657.72KB]

18 March
Like a rolling stone: a choice experiment to model location decisions of technological entrepreneurs
Frank J. van Rijnsoever (Utrecht University)


Innovation is inherently connected to novelty and uncertainty. This makes it difficult to forecast the behavior of actors in the innovation process. Studies commonly rely on data about observed behavior in the past or on survey data about intended behavior in the future. Yet, both methods have drawbacks. For example, it is unknown to what extent the context of behavior observed in the past is applicable to the current situation. Survey data about intended behavior often relies on rating an ranking scales, which commonly lack realism.
For this reason methods like conjoint analysis and discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are becoming more popular in innovation studies. DCEs originate from marketing and transportation studies, and are often used to elicit consumer preferences. They can also help to better understand the drivers of strategic choices and hence to forecast behavior of actors in the innovation process like firms, entrepreneurs or scientists.
In a DCE, respondents receive a series of hypothetical choice tasks with systematically varying attributes from which they can choose a preferred alternative. A big advantage of using DCEs is that the choice tasks can be framed to represent real decisions. Moreover, the level of the independent variables is given by the experimental design, which greatly reduces the risk of common method bias. Third, since each respondent receives multiple choice tasks, DCEs allow the identification of latent classes of respondents with similar choice patterns. Thereby they help to understand the heterogeneity in preferences among deciding agents.
I present the location decision of early stage entrepreneurs as an example application of a DCE. Studies that consider location preferences of start-up firms have modelled heterogeneity in preferences for locations using observed characteristics of the firm (age, size, industry, etc.), the entrepreneur (demographics, personality, etc.), and the region (population, proximity to universities, tolerance). I explore the heterogeneity inferred from the choice behavior of entrepreneurs using a latent class model.
The data comes from a unique sample of 935 entrepreneurs with early stage technology based start-ups from Western Europe and North America. The attributes in the DCE attributes represent characteristics of hypothetical locations where the entrepreneur can move its startup to. The analyses reveal that three classes of entrepreneurs can be differentiated with regard to their preferences for startup locations. One class focusses mostly on regional economic attributes (funding, markets), while the other two classes incorporate more personal elements in their choice (distance to loved ones, quality of living). Next, I describe these classes in terms of observed variables.
I discuss the implications of this result for regions that try to attract entrepreneurs. Moreover, I reflect on the use of DCEs in the context of innovation studies. 


Frank van Rijnsoever is assistent professor at Utrecht University. His research focusses primarily on Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Knowledge Utilization. He has published in journals like Research Policy, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, The Journal of Technology Transfer and Science & Public Policy. Frank serves as academic editor for PLOS ONE and is program leader of the research master ‘Innovation Sciences’ at Utrecht University. See http://www.uu.nl/staff/FJvanRijnsoever/0

8 April
Incumbents and institutions in sustainability transitions
Marko Hekkert (Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University


When policy makers strive for societal transformation they need to deal with incumbents. Incumbents are defined as organisations that have participated in the previous generation of technologies. According to many authors incumbents are not fit to develop and respond to radical technologies required for societal transformation processes. Others contest this view and point at the important share of radical innovations that are actually developed by incumbents. Even though the factual role of incumbents may be contested, the literature agrees on the fact that incumbents are well connected to policy spheres posses large political influence. This influence can either be used to slow down or to accelerate transition processes. In this presentation Marko Hekkert discusses different roles that incumbents play in transition processes based on a number of recent PhD projects at Utrecht University by Magda Smink, Joeri Wesseling and Piret Kukk. He will highlight defensive strategies that are used and how these defensive strategies change of time. Also he will show how well incumbents play the institutional game when they aim for radical change. The talk will end with some first proposals for policy makers on how to actually deal with incumbents in times of transition. 


Prof. Marko Hekkert (1971) is director of the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development and head of Innovation Studies at Utrecht University. He studies the dynamics of emerging technological fields. Most of his studies focus on technological fields that contribute to a more sustainable society like renewable energy technologies. Theoretically he aims to contribute to the innovation systems perspective by improving our knowledge how emerging innovation systems develop and what type of micro mechanisms (power, lobby, research, strategy, expectations, resources) determine the dynamics of innovation systems.


Exploring car manufacturers’ responses to technology-forcing regulation: The case of California's ZEV mandate [PDF 847.17KB]

The complexities in system building strategies — The case of personalized cancer medicines in England [PDF 591.18KB]

15 April
Low Carbon Innovation in China: Prospects, Politics and Practices
Adrian Ely and Sam Geall (SPRU)


China is the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, with per capita emissions now on a par with those in Europe. At the same time, the growing capabilities within China’s dynamic innovation system have drawn significant interest from innovation scholars, with many pointing to China’s increasing role in pioneering low carbon (or sustainability-oriented) innovation. Whilst these studies are informative, they tend to downplay questions about the politics of socio-technical change in China and the importance of user perceptions and practices. Drawing from a recent ESRC-funded research study that involved six institutions from the UK and China, this seminar begins to address these gaps. Focussing on two phenomena in the agrifood system (public resistance to GMOs and civil-society initiatives around sustainable food), it asks how these are influencing dominant pathways of change, and whether these are indicative of wider shifts in the country’s approach to innovation governance.


Dr Adrian Ely is a senior lecturer at the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex and Deputy Director/ Head of Impact and Engagement at the ESRC STEPS Centre. He is leading the efforts to establish a STEPS Centre hub in China. He is interested in innovation for sustainability, but his research focuses in particular on international, trans-disciplinary studies of the regulation and governance of emerging biotechnologies, for example co-authoring the book ‘Regulating Technology: International harmonisation and local realities’ in 2010. Adrian is involved in ongoing research projects focussing on grassroots innovation for sustainability (Argentina, India), low-carbon innovation (China) and collaborative research in the life sciences (Europe-Asia).
Dr Sam Geall is Research Fellow at the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at University of Sussex, Executive Editor of chinadialogue.net and an Associate Fellow at Chatham House. His research focuses on environmental governance, media and civil society in China. His writing on Chinese affairs has appeared in many publications, including The Guardian, The New Statesman, Foreign Policy and Index on Censorship. He is on the board of the EU-China NGO Twinning Exchange and has worked as an International Coordinator for the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED). He also edited the book China and the Environment: The Green Revolution (Zed Books, 2013).

22 April
Credibility of policy commitments and incentives for innovation
Gregory Nemet (University of Wisconsin–Madison)


A combination of characteristics of the climate change problem make the credibility of future commitments crucial for climate policy. The century-long lifetimes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and of energy infrastructure require a long term perspective. Decarbonizing the global economy depends on the incentives for investment in innovation. Persistent uncertainty— both about the problem and potential solutions—necessitate adapting to new information. Thus, even in a first best world, climate policy design needs to navigate a tradeoff between making commitments that are sufficiently credible to stimulate innovation and retaining flexibility to adjust. The first part of this talk addresses the fragility of demand pull incentives for low-carbon innovation. We look at how other policy areas (monetary, fiscal, and trade) have addressed a similar dilemma and develop a taxonomy of potential remedies for climate policy. The second part of this talk addresses credibility issues involved in moving radical innovations from the laboratory to full commercial scale. Heuristics from the literature present policy makers with the challenge of needing to address a market failure while acknowledging a government failure, i.e. incentives for private investments in demonstrations are weak (the Valley of Death) but the track record of governance in large demonstration projects is poor (The Technology Pork Barrel). We analyze the decisions at stake in this dilemma using cases of large scale technology demonstration programs.


Gregory Nemet is an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison in the La Follette School of Public Affairs and the Nelson Institute's Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment. He is also chair of the Energy Analysis and Policy (EAP) certificate program. He teaches courses in international policy analysis, energy systems analysis, and environmental governance. His research focuses on understanding the process of technological change and the ways in which public policy can affect it. He has been a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Global Energy Assessment. He received his doctorate in energy and resources from the University of California, Berkeley. His A.B. is in geography and economics from Dartmouth College.


Addressing policy credibility problems for low carbon investment [PDF 281.58KB]

29 April
The Value of Everything (a presentation on the forthcoming book by Mazzucato, Penguin 2016)
Mariana Mazzucato (SPRU)




Professor Mariana Mazzucato (PhD) holds the RM Phillips chair in the Economics of Innovation at SPRU in the University of Sussex. She has held academic positions at the University of Denver, London Business School, Open University, and Bocconi University. Her book The Entrepreneurial State: debunking public vs. private sector myths (Anthem, 2013) was on the 2013 Books of the Year list of the Financial Times She is winner of the 2014 New Statesman SPERI Prize in Political Economy, the 2015 Hans-Matthöfer-Preis and in 2013 the New Republic called her one of the '3 most important thinkers about innovation'. She is an economic advisor for the Scottish Government, the Labour Party, and is a member of the World Economic Forum’s commission for the Economics of Innovation. Her current research is funded by the European Commission, the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), the Ford Foundation, NASA, and the Brazilian Ministry for Science and Technology.  

6 May
Between altmetrics and webometrics: Estimating non-academic research impacts with indicators derived from the web
Mike Thelwall (School of Mathematics and Computing, University of Wolverhampton)


Although indicators based on traditional citation counts are widely used to estimate the impact of researchers’ outputs, it is widely recognised that there are many types of outputs that are not well reflected by academic citations. Examples include discoveries with major commercial, education or policy applications. If important, these may well attract some citations but their citations might substantially underestimate their real impact. If quantitative indicators are used to help inform research assessments then a reliance on citations from journal articles can therefore undermine the value of researchers that successfully produce work with non-academic impacts. This talk will discuss the potential to use the web to get evidence of different types of impacts for standard and non-standard research outputs. Amongst the promising metrics are web-based patent metrics to reflect commercial impact, online course syllabus mentions to reflect education impact, Google Books citation counts and library holdings to reflect cultural and societal impacts, and general web mentions as a catch-all indicator. In addition, Mendeley reader counts are a particularly promising early impact indicator but probably reflect a type of academic impact similar to citation counts.


Professor Mike Thelwall leads the Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group at the University of Wolverhampton, UK. He evaluates metrics derived from the web and has developed free software and methods for systematically gathering and analysing web and social web data, including for altmetrics, webometrics, and sentiment analysis for Mendeley, Twitter, YouTube, Google Books, blogs and the general web. He also conducts evaluation exercises for large organisations using web data, including for various divisions within the United Nations and European Commission. He has co-authored hundreds of refereed journal articles and has written three books, including “Introduction to webometrics: Quantitative web research for the social sciences” and is a co-author of the 2015 report “The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management”

Background material

Substance without Citation [PDF 200.61KB]


13 May
The Triple Challenge for Europe: The Economy, Climate Change and Governance
Ben Martin (SPRU)


Europe is confronted by an intimidating triple challenge – economic stagnation, climate change, and a governance crisis. This paper demonstrates how the three challenges are closely inter-related, and discusses how they can be dealt with more effectively in order to arrive at a more economically secure, environmentally sustainable and well governed Europe. In particular, a return to economic growth cannot come at the expense of greater risk of irreversible climate change. Instead, what is required is a fundamental transformation of the economy to a new ‘green’ trajectory based on rapidly diminishing emission of greenhouse gases. This entails much greater emphasis on innovation in all its forms (not just technological). Following this path would mean turning Europe into a veritable laboratory for sustainable growth, environmentally as well as socially. The paper is based on a forthcoming book: Fagerberg, J., S. Laestadius and B. R. Martin eds. (2015) The Triple Challenge for Europe: Economic Development, Climate Change and Governance, Oxford University Press.


Ben Martin is Professor of Science and Technology Policy Studies at SPRU, where he served as Director from 1997 to 2004. He is also an Associate Fellow at the Centre for Science and Policy (CSaP), and a Research Associate at the Centre for Business Research, Judge Business School, both at the University of Cambridge. He has carried out research for over 30 years in the field of science policy. He helped to establish techniques for evaluating scientific laboratories, research programmes and national scientific performance. He also pioneered the notion of ‘technology foresight’. More recently, he has carried out research on the benefits from government funding of basic research, the changing nature and role of the university, the impact of the Research Assessment Exercise, and the evolution of the field of science policy and innovation studies. Since 2004, he has been Editor of Research Policy, and he is also the 1997 winner of the de Solla Price Medal for Science Studies.


The Triple Challenge for Europe: The Economy, Climate Change and Governance [PDF 573.49KB]

20 May
Patterns of eco-innovation
Floortje Alkemade (Eindhoven University of Technology)


Global sustainable development critically depends on a fundamental transformation of current energy-intensive systems along both socio-economic and environmental dimensions. These two dimensions are closely related as energy is required for economic growth, and poverty often coincides with limited access to energy and a high vulnerability to the effects of climate change (GEA, 2012). Technology that has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (here labelled as cleantech) plays a key role in global scenarios for sustainable development (IPCC, 2011). The cleantech innovation process includes the process of cleantech invention as well as its further development through learning and its diffusion.
There is an uneven geographical distribution of cleantech innovation; the invention of radically new cleantech, its cost reduction through learning, and cleantech diffusion differ greatly among countries and also among different cleantech options (Negro et al., 2012, Junginger et al., 2012; Raven and Geels, 2010). This geographical heterogeneity is not taken into account in the global scenarios for climate change mitigation that assume that individual countries follow the globally optimal pathway using the best available technology (GEA, 2012). Empirically, we observe large differences in the ability of countries to do so: First, success in cleantech innovation is path-dependent; it strongly depends on the history and existing capacities of a country as well as on the local geographical and climate conditions. Second, national policies that influence cleantech development are not only guided by environmental concerns but also by considerations about the economic effects of such policies (Alkemade et al., 2011; Stern, 2008). Given these sources of heterogeneity, it remains unclear what the most promising options for cleantech innovation are for a specific country. This paper addresses this knowledge gap for the specific case of the Netherlands.
Although many actor types are important in sustainability transitions, firm actors are ultimately responsible for bringing cleantech to the market. One of the longstanding questions in innovation literature is which firms contribute the most to innovation, is it incumbents or new entrants, and is one of the dimensions through which different transition pathways can be distinguished (Geels and Schot, 2007). In this paper we therefore investigate the actors that are active in cleantech innovation and investigate their performance. More specifically, we study which firms are active in eco-patenting and in which fields and we link their patenting behavior to two performance measures, patent citations and jobs.
Empirical studies so far offer mixed evidence and the main focus of the most recent studies seems to lie not just on the question whether it pays to be green, but more interestingly on “when or for whom it pays” (Ghisetti and Rennings, 2014, p.108). Key dimensions relate to types of EI, the time horizon of the analysis, the level of development of the underlying technology and the previous EI capabilities of companies.
The new Y02 classification of cleantech by the European Patent Office provides a unique and recent description of the global cleantech knowledge base (Veefkind et al., 2012). Patents are generally considered an indicator of invention rather than of innovation, and offer a good description of the knowledge base of firms, and countries (Archibugi and Pianta, 1996; Jaffe and Trajtenberg, 2002; OECD, 2009). In addition, patenting is the main way to protect invention in the transport and energy domain (EPO, 2010). It has, however, been difficult to link patents to specific sectors or technologies. The Y02 classification scheme makes it possible to, for the first time, explicitly link patents to cleantech innovations and thus provides a rich new dataset on worldwide cleantech knowledge that is directly applied in cleantech innovations. We extract all Dutch Y02 priority patents from the PATSTAT (fall 2014) worldwide patent database. We then link these patents to Dutch firms in the Van Dijk Amadeus and the Chamber of Commerce database, using firm name and address information. Table 1 descibes the different Y02 subclasses.
Results: Dutch eco-patenting follows the worldwide trend and has strongly increased in the last decade. Most eco-patents are applied for by small and medium sized enterprises. Highly cited patents can be found in Carbon Capture and Storage, Energy Efficient lighting and waste and waste water treatment, fields were a strong and specialised prior related knowledge base exists.


Floortje Alkemade is full professor Economics and Governance of Technological Innovation at Eindhoven University of Technology. She received a VIDI grant (2014) and a VENI grant (2008) from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research for research projects on sustainable technology. Together with her group she seeks to identify the general and the location-specific mechanisms that lead to successful innovations for sustainability.

27 May
Industrial policy conundrums in southern Europe
Ricardo Mamede (Instituto Universitário de Lisboa)


Southern European economies have been strongly hit by the euro zone crisis since 2010. Their vulnerability to the financial hurdles of the euro zone is partially related to their specialization profile (which is heavily reliant on relatively low knowledge intensive activities) and their incapacity to significantly upgrade their productive structure in recent decades. In this presentation I will discuss to what extent industrial policy should be a top priority of Southern European national governments and some of the main dilemmas that they have to face in this domain at the present juncture.


Ricardo Paes Mamede is Assistant Professor of Political Economy at ISCTE – Lisbon University Institute and researcher at Dinâmia’CET since 1999. Between 2008 and 2014 he also coordinated the Research and Evaluation Department at the NSRF Observatory, the government agency responsible for monitoring the use of EU structural funds in Portugal during the period 2007-2013. In 2007 and 2008 he was Head of Unit of Economic Analysis at the Research Bureau of the Portuguese Ministry of the Economy and Innovation. He has a PhD in Economics from Bocconi University (Italy) and a Master’s in Economics and Management of Science and Technology from ISEG/University of Lisbon. His research interests are in the fields of innovation and industry dynamics, structural change, European integration, and public policies. In 2014 he coedited (with Aurora Teixeira and Ester Silva) the book Structural Change, Competitiveness and Industrial Policy: Painful Lessons from the European Periphery (Routledge).

Background Material

Assessment and challenges of industrial policies in Portugal [PDF 333.62KB] 

Mamede - paper Schumpeter 2014.

On the Origin of European Imbalances in the Context of European Integration

An Industrial Policy for Europe

3 June
The Wives of Synthetic Biology: Social Scientist’s Roles in an Emerging Field 
Andrew Balmer (University of Manchester)


Based on criticism of the ‘ethical, legal and social implications’ (ELSI) paradigm, researchers in science and technology studies (STS) have begun to create and move into more integrated, collaborative or “post-ELSI” spaces. In this paper, I explore some different roles that I and colleagues have taken, been assumed to take, or have had foisted upon us as we have sought to develop more collaborative practices in the context of synthetic biology. In an attempt to be playful, a strategy I am developing for thinking about and bringing about changes in collaborations, I argue that several of these roles can be thought of using a few different notions of ‘the wife’, each of which has implications for power relations, affective tenor, ethics and opportunities for co-production. 


Dr Andy Balmer is Lecture in Sociology at the University of Manchester, a member of the Morgan Centre for Research into Everyday Lives and a Co-Investigator in the Manchester Synthetic Biology Research Centre ‘SYNBIOCHEM’. His work mixes STS and other sociological approaches to explore several topics, including synthetic biology, collaboration, lie detection and dementia.

Background material

Five Rules of Thumb for Post-ELSI Interdisciplinary Collaborations [PDF 375.15KB]

Reflections on Working in Post-ELSI Spaces in the UK Synthetic Biology Community [PDF 399.42KB]

10 June
The Financial System We Need’. How to align the financial system with sustainable development
Nick Robins (UNEP)


A presentation on the findings of the UNEP Inquiry into the Design of a Sustainable Financial System which argued that the financial system can be shaped to more effectively finance the development of an inclusive, green economy. Emerging policy practices in countries such as Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Colombia, France, India, Indonesia, Kenya, South Africa, the UK and the USA were studied – revealing that there is a slow growing trend in capital markets, banking, insurance and institutional investment which incorporates sustainability factors into the rules that govern the financial system.The presentation will explore how these themes are being taken up, for example, by the G20 as well as some of the outstanding policy dilemmas and research needs.


Nick Robins is co-director of the UNEP Inquiry into the Design of a Sustainable Financial System. The Inquiry aims to advance policy options that align the financial system with long-term sustainable development and published its first global report, The Financial System We Need, in October 2015.
Nick Robins has over 20 years’ experience in the policy, research and financial dimensions of sustainable development. Before joining UNEP, he was Head of the Climate Change Centre of Excellence at HSBC in London from 2007 to 2014, where he produced investment research on issues such as clean tech growth, climate vulnerability, green stimulus and stranded assets. In the Thomson Extel awards for European investment research, Nick was ranked as #1 analyst for integrated climate change in 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Prior to HSBC, Nick was first head of SRI research and then head of SRI funds at Henderson Global Investors. At Henderson, he published the first ever carbon audit of an investment fund and co-designed the Industries of the Future fund. Nick has also worked for the International Institute of Environment and Development, the European Commission’s Environment Directorate and was part of the original Business Council for Sustainable Development.
Nick has authored two books – The Corporation that Changed the World: How the East India Company Shaped the Modern Multinational (2006) and Sustainable Investing: the Art of Long-Term Performance (with Cary Krosinsky, 2008). He has also published numerous reports and has had articles published by the Financial Times, the Guardian, and Huffington Post.
Nick is also an adviser to a number of groups including the Climate Bonds Initiative, the Carbon Tracker Initiative and WHEB Asset Management, and is a trustee of the Resurgence Trust.

Background material

The Financial System We Need [PDF 5.08MB]

17 June
Crafting Articles for Publication and Research Priorities (for the Journal of Product Innovation Management)
Gloria Barczak


This presentation has 2 foci. First, it will cover the latest news and updates regarding the Journal of Product Innovation Management and also some guidelines for getting papers through the review process. Second, a number of research priorities for JPIM will be discussed and suggestions of possible research questions will be presented.


Professor Gloria Barczak (Ph.D., Syracuse University) is Professor of Marketing in the D’Amore-McKim School of Business at Northeastern University in Boston, MA. She is the current Editor of the Journal of Product Innovation Management. She is the 2010 Robert D. Klein University Lecturer, a Senior Advisor to Creativity and Innovation Management, and a member of the Editorial Board of IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. She is a current member of the Product Development & Management Association (PDMA) Board and Academic Committee and of the IPDMC Scientific Committee. She recently was a member of the Organizing Committee for the first ISPIM conference (2016 ISPIM Boston Innovation Forum) in the United States. She has published over 35 articles, one book, and several book chapters/edited proceedings. Her current research examines the use and role of information technology tools, including social networking, during the NPD process.

Autumn term 2015
2 October
Business model innovation in infrastructure industries
Paul Nightingale (SPRU)




Paul Nightingale was originally trained as a chemist and worked in industry as in analytical environmental toxicology in the R&D labs of a major blue chip firm. His PhD was on the changing technology of technical change and looked at the use of computer simulations in the pharmaceutical, aerospace, chemical and chemical engineering industries. It also involved a pilot study of the LEP detector at CERN.
After his PhD, Paul worked for 10 years in the Complex Product Systems Innovation Centre, jointly run between SPRU and CENTRIM. While there he did a lot of work on bioinformatics systems and risk management technology in investment banks.
Paul has done a substantial amount of policy work on innovation policy in the UK and led NESTA’s Innovation Gap research project, working closely with Virgina Acha who was the brains behind the final report. The Innovation Gap report integrated a lot of the research findings from the CoPS innovation centre’s work, as well as similar work that had been undertaken at our partner innovation centre CRIC at the University of Manchester. The main concern of the report was that many traditional indicators of innovation now fail to capture the complexity of technical change in the UK economy. As a result, public policy has become increasingly disconnected from practice. The report also highlighted the large amount of 'hidden innovation' ongoing in the economy, building on the original work on Hidden Innovation that had been undertaken by my PhD student at the time Michael Hopkins.
Paul’s main areas of work now relate to financial innovation, and its impact on the economy. Paul is PI of a large three year research project that will be exploring venture capital policy, the funding and management of high impact ‘gazelle’ firms, and innovation in investment banking.

9 October
What do firms know? What do they produce? A new look at the relationship between patenting profiles and patterns of product diversification
Marco Grazzi (University of Bologna & University of Cambridge)


 In this work we analyze the relationship between the patterns of firm diversification, if any, across product lines and across bodies of innovative knowledge, proxied by the patent classes where the firm is present. Putting it more emphatically we investigate the relationship between ""what a firm doe"" and ""what a firm knows"". Using a newly developed dataset matching information on patents and products at the firm level, we provide evidence concerning firms' technological and product scope, their relationships, the size-scaling and coherence properties of versification itself. Our analysis shows that typically firms are much more diversified in terms of products than in terms of technologies, with their main products more related to the exploitation of their innovative knowledge. The scaling properties show that the number of products and technologies increase log-linearly as firms grow. And the directions of diversification themselves display coherence between neighbouring activities also at relatively high degrees of diversification. These findings are well in tune with a capability-based theory of the firm.


Marco Grazzi is assistant professor at the University of Bologna, Department of Economics and he is now visiting the Center for Business Research at the University of Cambridge. He earned his PhD at the Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna in Pisa and he has published his works in several journals (refer to the website for an up to date list). His research focuses on the role of firms in shaping aggregate industry and country dynamics. To this end, his works embrace a number of fields ranging from international trade, firm growth and its relation to innovation, to the analysis of production, both from a theoretical and empirical point of view.


What do firms know? What do they produce? A new look at the relationship between patenting profiles and patterns of product diversification

16 October
Global, endogenous, unique, evolutionary: Sleuthing the Industrial Revolution
Gerald Silverberg (UNU-MERIT / IIASA)


Global, endogenous, unique, evolutionary: Sleuthing the Industrial Revolution


Gerald Silverberg studied physics and mathematics at Cornell and Harvard Universities in the USA. He worked as a science journalist in New York before moving to Europe and studying economics and economic history as well as mathematical systems theory. He was a Research Associate at the University of Stuttgart from 1983 to 1987 with primary responsibility for a research project on technical change and the theory of self-organisation, sponsored by the German Research Council (DFG). In 1987, he was employed by the International Federation of Institutes for Advanced Study (IFIAS), and in 1995/96 was a Senior Research Scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). He has been a Senior Research Fellow at UNU-MERIT (Maastricht, NL) since January 1988 and a Visiting Research Scholar at IIASA (Laxenburg, A) since 2006.


 Global, endogenous,unique, evolutionary: Sleuthing the Industrial Revolution 

23 October
Innovation bureaucracy: Entrepreneurial state and organizational variety
Rainer Kattel (University of Tartu / Columbia University)


Current research on how to organize the role of government in innovation – both how governments support innovation in markets and how governments achieve innovations within public organizations – converges around a rather simplified single-organization explanations: innovations are driven by either (Weberian) elite expert organizations or (Schumpeterian) fluid peripheral organizations. We show that looking at history of innovation bureaucracy, a more complex picture emerges: historically we find a rich organizational variety for implementing diverse innovation policy goals. We show that historically the organizational variety is, first, driven by highly diverse public-private relationships; and second, the variety itself is an important factor in success and failure of innovation policies. Combining analytical lenses created by Weber and Mintzberg we build analytical framework based on routines and capacities to analyze organizational variety in innovation bureaucracy. We show how different kinds of public organizations are successful at delivering different kinds of innovation policy goals. Particularly important is the distinction between organizations capable of innovations in policies vs organizations supporting innovations in private sector. We finish with discussing the importance of organizational variety for the concept of entrepreneurial state.


Rainer Kattel is professor and chair of innovation policy and technology governance at the Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance at Tallinn University of Technology in Estonia; and visiting scholar at Earth Institute, Columbia University, USA. Since 2012, he has co-directed Estonia’s Science and Innovation Policy Monitoring Program. His main research area is industrial and innovation policies in catching-up economies, especially Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America. He has published extensively on innovation policy and development economics. His recent books include Ragnar Nurkse: Trade and Development, co-edited with Jan A. Kregel and Erik S. Reinert, Anthem, 2009; Knowledge Governance: Reasserting the Public Interest co-edited with Leonardo Burlamaqui and Ana Celia Castro, Anthem, 2012; and Public Procurement for Innovation Policy: International Perspectives co-edited with Tarmo Kalvet and Veiko Lember, Springer, 2013. In 2012, he was awarded the Estonian National Science Prize in Social Sciences.


Innovation Bureaucracy:Does the organization of government matter when promoting innovation?

30 October
The dynamics of the world economy, neoliberalism and technological change
Peter Senker (University of East London)


The profit seeking behaviour of corporations, technological change and marketing should all be at the centre of multi-disciplinary analyses of the forces driving economic change since 1900. Neoliberals believe that the state should be confined to safeguarding individual and commercial liberty and strong property rights. But in practice, corporations’ dependence on state support has been pervasive for at least a hundred years. Corporations lobby International Organizations as well as states, both to create conditions more favourable to their own individual interests, and also to increase the proportion of economies in which private corporations are allowed to operate: This applies, for example, to privatization of health and education services which is not generally in the public interest. Economies can be perceived as complex networks of interlocking systems. On this basis, the paper outlines examples of interactions between corporations, technological change, marketing and lobbying, state support and International Organizations. These include huge state support for road construction which facilitated the domination of cars over land transport; roles of marketing and technological change in the food and agricultural industries; state support for scientific and technological change in semiconductors and the Internet, and for the development of biotechnology. For the last thirty years, neoliberalism has dominated policy makers’ economic analysis, but it was obsolescent when it was invented seventy years ago.


Peter worked in industry and consultancy for fifteen years, including ten years in economic analysis and market research in the Philips Group. In 1971, he took up a one year IBM Fellowship at the Manchester Business School. .The following year, he joined SPRU, where for more than twenty years he led research teams studying the implications of technological change for skills and training in British manufacturing and construction industries. After retirement, he was appointed as a Visiting Professor at the University of East London, where he co-edited and contributed chapters to three books written by multi-disciplinary groups, which reported on the findings of a research programme on technology and inequality which he had initiated. The most recent book - “Technology, Society and Inequality: New Horizons and Contested Futures” - was published by Peter Lang in 2013.


The dynamics of the world economy, neoliberalism and technological change

6 November
Europe’s Infrastructure Transition: Economy, War, Nature
Erik van Vleuten (School of Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology)


The seminar discusses the new book Europe’s Infrastructure Transition: Economy, War, Nature, which is Volume 3 of the series Making Europe. A New European History.

From the back cover:
Europe's infrastructure both united and divided peoples and places via economic systems, crises, and wars. Some used transport, communication, and energy infrastructure to supply food, power, industrial products, credit, and unprecedented wealth; others mobilized infrastructure capacities for waging war on scales hitherto unknown. Europe's natural world was fundamentally transformed; its landscapes, waterscapes, and airscapes turned into infrastructure themselves. Europe's Infrastructure Transition reframes the conflicted story of modern European history by taking material networks as its point of departure. The book traces the priorities set and the choices made in constructing transnational infrastructure connections - within and beyond the continent. Moreover, this study introduces an alternative set of historically-key individuals, organizations, and companies in the making of modern Europe and analyzes roads both taken and ignored.


Erik van der Vleuten is Professor of History of Technology at the Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands, and scientific director of the Foundation for the History of Technology SHT. In 2013-2015 he chaired the Pan-European research network Tensions of Europe. Technology and the Making of Europe. Erik studies the mutual shaping of infrastructure, societal, and environmental changes, and edited (with Högselius, Hommels, and Kaijser) The making of Europe’s Critical Infrastructure: Common Connections and Shared Vulnerabilities (2013).


13 November
Research Data: The Small Data Problem
Daniel Hook (Digital Science)


From recordings and transcripts in social sciences and humanities to climate data in ecological and earth sciences, the amount of data being produced across all fields of research is growing at an ever-increasing rate. For the last decade we've heard a lot about big data and its challenges, problems and opportunities. However, the big new problem for researchers and those involved in capturing, curating and sharing data is "small data" or the long tail problem. In today's talk I will talk generally around the issues in this space and highlight some of the key problems.


Daniel is Managing Director at Digital Science. Daniel has held many positions within Digital Science since joining the business four years ago as co-founder of Symplectic, one of Digital Science’s first portfolio companies. Most recently, he has served as Director of Research Metrics, whilst also acting as interim COO of portfolio company, Figshare. Daniel was a PhD student in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College London before he joined Digital Science.
In his free time Daniel continues to play an active role in theoretical physics research, holding a visiting professorship at Washington University in St Louis. His interests include PT-Symmetric quantum theory, quantum statistical mechanics and complex network theory.


Referencing: The reuse factor

20 November
The ethos of scientific advice
Arthur Petersen (STEaPP, UCL)


There are many theories that can inform analysis of how science advice is done or should be done. Here I define “science advice” as “practices involving individuals, organisations and structures that mobilise natural and social scientific and engineering knowledge into public decision-making”. In this seminar, I will demonstrate that although some theories are well elaborated, empirical proof for the described changes, roles and processes in scientific advice is limited. After reviewing literature and outstanding questions on roles of scientific advisors at local, national and international levels, I will offer a pragmatist analysis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Subsequently, I will assess capacity-building needs in science advice across a range of cultural and political contexts, and governance scales: What skills do future science advisors and recipients of science advice need to deal responsibly with their tasks? I will conclude with presenting elements of an ethos of scientific advice, which are based on experiences with implementing post-normal science at the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.


Professor Arthur C Petersen (DPA PhD MA MSc) joined UCL STEaPP fulltime in September 2014 after more than 13 years’ work as scientific adviser on environment and infrastructure policy within the Dutch Government. Most recently he served as Chief Scientist of the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2011–2014).
Arthur is also Adjunct Professor of Science and Environmental Public Policy at the VU University Amsterdam (since 2011) and Research Affiliate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (since 2009), and has been Visiting Professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science (2009–2014) and at UCL STEaPP (January–August 2014).
Arthur studied physics and philosophy, obtained doctorate degrees in atmospheric sciences (Doctor of Philosophy – PhD, Utrecht University, 1999) and philosophy of science (Doctor of Public Administration – DPA, VU University Amsterdam, 2006), and now also finds disciplinary homes in anthropology and political science. Most of his research is about managing uncertainty. 


Post-Normal Science in Practice at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

Roles of scientists as policy advisers on complex issues: A literature review

27 November
Long run welfare effects of energy services and technologies (1800-2010)
Roger Fouquet (Grantham Research Institute, LSE)


This paper investigates the welfare effects of energy services and technologies, and how they have changed in the long run. Using data on consumer expenditure and price elasticities of demand for domestic heating, transport and lighting over the last three hundred years, it provides estimates of how consumer surplus associated with these energy services changed with economic and technological development. It also compares them with estimates of the external costs of energy services to indicate the net welfare effects. Although crude, they suggest that only transport has always provided large net welfare benefits. In particular, the damage associated with accidental fires in the eighteenth century and coal smoke in the nineteenth century may have outweighed the benefits from heating and lighting consumption. This long run perspective can offer insights about the net benefits of future energy services and technologies, of particular relevance to R&D investment in energy technologies and strategies for low carbon pathways.


Roger Fouquet is Associate Professorial Research Fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. Over the last twenty years, he has been investigating the long run relationship between economic development, energy use and its environmental impacts, using evidence from economic history. His most recent article, with Steve Broadberry in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, offers a new and more detailed picture of European economic development since the medieval era, highlighting the dynamism of European economies prior to the Industrial Revolution. In 2006, his joint article on very long run trends in lighting prices and consumption was chosen for the annual Campbell Watkins Award for Best Paper in The Energy Journal. In 2010, his book, 'Heat, Power and Light: revolutions in energy services', was selected by Choice Magazine as one of its Outstanding Academic Titles. In 2013, he edited the Handbook on Energy and Climate Change, which included many of the leading authorities on the economic analysis of energy and climate change. He is an associate editor of the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics.

4 December
Reducing UK emissions to 2030 – the fifth carbon budget advice
Adrian Gault Committee on Climate Change (Chief Economist)


The Committee on Climate Change has just provided advice to the Government that the level of the fifth carbon budget (the limit on UK emissions over the years 2028-32) should be set at a level which is a 57% reduction on 1990. This would represent a continuation of progress on track to a reduction of at least 80% by 2050.
The timetable for the Committee’s advice is set by the Climate Change Act, and it is coincidence that this comes at the same time as the Paris meeting for COP21. The Committee’s assessment, however, is that the scientific evidence confirms that without action to limit warming to the globally agreed level of 2°C, climate change will pose serious risks to the UK and around the world. The UK’s contribution – as set by the 2050 target – is in keeping with, and helps to promote, wider international climate action.
In this presentation, Adrian Gault, Chief Economist at the Committee, will describe the approach to developing its advice, which is intended to represent the lowest-cost path to meeting the UK’s legal commitments to reduce emissions by 2050. He will cover how the advice balances a range of statutory duties required by the Climate Change Act, which include ensuring that carbon budgets are affordable, do not adversely affect the UK’s competitiveness, are consistent with energy policy, particularly security of supply, and ensure that potential impacts on fuel poverty are manageable.
To keep within the emissions limits set by the fourth and fifth carbon budgets, and to stay on track to 2050, a number of new policies and clear long-term signals to investors will be required. Doubtless, discussion will move on to these requirements.


Adrian joined the secretariat of the Committee on Climate Change in May 2009, where he is responsible for analytical work looking at UK greenhouse gas emission reduction potential and costs. Currently, the Committee is taking forward work to inform its advice to the Government, due by the end of the year, on the level of the 5th carbon budget, covering UK emissions 2028-32. Prior to joining the CCC secretariat, Adrian has substantial experience of energy and environmental issues – as an economist in Department for Transport, the Energy Group at DTI (now part of DECC) and in the Treasury tax team.



11 December
S&T indicators in the peripheries: biases and effects
Ismael Rafols / Jordi Molas (SPRU)


This paper aims to explore the problems that emerge when S&T indicators are used in peripheral contexts, that is, in geographical or social spaces that are somehow marginal to (or marginalised by) the centres of scientific activity. In these situations evaluators and decision-makers are likely to use indicators that were designed to reflect variables relevant in the dominant social and geographical contexts --i.e. in the hegemonic countries, languages, gender, disciplines, etc.--, but that are usually not adequate in peripheral contexts.
We will examine various dimensions of periphery. First, the geographical: e.g. global south vs. global north, regions vs. metropolises (Aguado et al. 2014). Second, the social group dimension: women, the disenfranchised, the poor, or perhaps the elderly have social needs that are different from those of richer or more powerful groups --and the problems affecting the former tend be less researched than those of the later (Stirling, 2014). Third, the cognitive dimension: areas of research, such as epidemiology or surgery, that capture less attention in terms of publications or citations (and resources) than the more prestigious disciplines, such as molecular biology (van Eck et al, 2013).
This study investigates the mechanisms by which performance indicators tend to be biased against peripheral spaces. This would include for example, bias in language (van Leeuwen et al. 2011), or disciplinary/topic coverage in conventional databases (Martin et al., 2010). An interesting issue to consider is how the overlap across peripheries, i.e. how bias in language coverage has an effect on bias in disciplines or topics covered (Archambault et al., 2006; Piñeiro and Hicks, 2015).
We discuss how these biases may have a tendency to suppress scientific diversity and shift research towards a higher degree of homogeneity (Rafols et al., 2012). We discuss how the "objectification" of excellence by means of indicators may support the diffusion of mainstream modes of research at the expense of critical or unorthodox modes.


Roger Fouquet is Associate Professorial Research Fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. Over the last twenty years, he has been investigating the long run relationship between economic development, energy use and its environmental impacts, using evidence from economic history. His most recent article, with Steve Broadberry in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, offers a new and more detailed picture of European economic development since the medieval era, highlighting the dynamism of European economies prior to the Industrial Revolution. In 2006, his joint article on very long run trends in lighting prices and consumption was chosen for the annual Campbell Watkins Award for Best Paper in The Energy Journal. In 2010, his book, 'Heat, Power and Light: revolutions in energy services', was selected by Choice Magazine as one of its Outstanding Academic Titles. In 2013, he edited the Handbook on Energy and Climate Change, which included many of the leading authorities on the economic analysis of energy and climate change. He is an associate editor of the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics.

Summer term 2015
15 May 
The transition to prepaid electricity and the taming of uncertain livelihoods in urban Africa
Idalina Baptista (University of Oxford)


"This presentation engages ongoing debates about energy transitions, the politics of socio-technical urban networks, and of contemporary urbanism in the global South to reflect on how prepaid technology relates to the uncertainty pervading urban livelihoods in Africa.
Discussions about prepayment of utility services, such as electricity and water, tend to engage arguments around the politics of nonpayment, especially among low-income populations. There is also an increasing interest in scrutinizing how prepayment and prepaid meters – as a technology and technical devices – come to mediate forms of politics, sociability and social ordering that go beyond economical transactions. While these debates fruitfully mobilize concepts of morality, subjectivity and citizenship to conceptualize the politics of prepayment in relation to energy security, sustainability and justice, there has been less attention paid to the relationship between the transition to prepayment and the specificities of the urban condition in cities of the global South.

Focusing on Africa, the historical failure of the ‘modern infrastructure ideal’ to deliver a legible, if contingently stabilized, productive urban environment is visible in ‘slum urbanism’ as the dominant way of life. Despite the best efforts of the international development community, urban livelihoods in Africa continue to be characterized by a high degree of uncertainty and provisionality, especially in what concerns access to housing and basic urban services. Urban dwellers themselves are actively involved (sometimes even transgressively) in the everyday governance of socio-technical urban networks – such water, electricity and waste – since these have never fully materialized or universalized across the urban landscape. If urban networks play a fundamental role in the organization of social life, both by structuring lived space and by being essential components of social practice, then what intersections can we posit between prepaid electricity and slum urbanism? To what extent does prepayment reflect and/or produce the uncertain urban livelihoods and urban environments of urban Africa where it is being rolled out?

Drawing on the case study of the transition to prepaid electricity in Maputo, Mozambique, this presentation examines how prepayment normalizes three dimensions of uncertainty inherent to the city’s urban condition: (1) the insecurity of electricity supply, in face of Mozambique’s paradoxical electricity scarcity amidst a booming energy sector; (2) the ambiguities inherent in the relationship between the utility provider and the ‘disorderly’ places of consumption in informal settlements; and (3) the contingent everyday practices of electricity consumption among low-income urban dwellers. It will be argued that prepayment embeds these three dimensions in the city’s urban fabric while it also facilitates the taming of uncertain urban livelihoods. By examining these dimensions of uncertainty and how they are produced, experienced and embedded in the transition to prepayment, the presentation provides insights into how socio-technical transitions in Africa are affected by the specificities of everyday practices and the urban condition."


Idalina Baptista is an Associate Professor in Urban Anthropology in the Department for Continuing Education, University of Oxford, associated with the DPhil, MSc and Short Courses in Sustainable Urban Development. She is an Associate Fellow of the Oxford Programme for the Future of Cities, a member of the Consultative Committee of the African Studies Centre, and a Fellow of Kellogg College. Idalina has taught on diverse themes relating to urban planning and environmental management at the University of California, Berkeley, the New University of Lisbon, Universidade Aberta, and Universidade Atlântica, in Portugal. She held a visiting position at the Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon and collaborated with colleagues at the New University of Lisbon on projects and initiatives involving public participation in urban and environmental planning and policymaking. Her teaching and research is informed by past experience as an environmental planning consultant and as a volunteer to NGOs in the environmental sector. Idalina holds a PhD in City and Regional Planning (2009) and a Master in Landscape Architecture (Environmental Planning concentration) (1999) from the University of California, Berkeley, USA, and a BEng in Environmental Engineering (1996) from the New University of Lisbon, Portugal.
Idalina’s current research focuses on the colonial and post-colonial geographies of urban energy infrastructure and urbanization in African cities, with a special focus on Maputo, Mozambique. Through her research, Idalina seeks to contribute to theorizations of African urbanization and the challenges of governing urban infrastructures in Africa. In particular, she is interested in examining how different forms of infrastructure governance emerge and the patterns of urbanization, citizenship and urban livelihoods these engender. Idalina has been exploring these themes in her latest research project, Electric Urbanism: the Governance of Electricity in Urban Africa, examining innovative energy practices adopted in rapidly urbanizing areas of Sub-Saharan Africa. She recently concluded a research project focused on notions of urban flexibility in governing cities undergoing processes of reconstruction after a disaster and/or coping with situations of endemic crisis in Africa and the Caribbean. In the past, she examined the use of regimes of exception as alternative forms of governance to deliver large-scale urban rehabilitation projects in Portugal. Idalina has published her work in the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Urban Studies, Urban Geography, City & Society, and in edited collections.

22 May
Measuring the Earth: the Anthropocene and the politics of the geosciences
Andrew Barry (UCL)


In a short article, published in the newsletter of the International Geosphere-Biosphere program in 2000, the geochemist Paul Crutzen and the biologist Eugene Stoermer proposed that the Earth had entered a new epoch, which they termed the Anthropocene. This period, they argued, was associated with a series of phenomena, including species extinction, the depletion of fossil fuel resources, and the release of sulphur and nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere, as well as the impact of greenhouse gases. Since 2000 the term has been taken up not just by geoscientists, but also by a growing number of writers in human and environmental geography, history, political theology, social anthropology, science and technology studies and the ‘ecological humanities’, as well as artists and curators. Yet despite the burgeoning enthusiasm for the idea of the Anthropocene, the meaning and utility of the term remains disputed, not least among geoscientists. In this paper, I discuss some of the key questions raised by the idea of the Anthropocene, focusing on the lack of agreement amongst geoscientists about when the Anthropocene actually began. The debate about the timing of the Anthropocene, I argue, is both a controversy about the science and politics of climate change, and a controversy about how geo and social scientists conceive of the relation between the geologic and human history.


Andrew Barry is Professor and Chair of Human Geography, University College London. Andrew completed his DPhil at SPRU and subsequently held posts at Brunel University and Goldsmiths College, and the School of Geography and Environment, Oxford University, before joining UCL in 2013. His most recent books are Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the Social and Natural Sciences (co-edited with Georgina Born, 2013) and Material Politics: Disputes along the Pipeline (2013). He is currently developing a series of new research projects on the political geography of the geosciences.

29 May
Employment Protection Legislation and Firm Growth: Evidence from a Natural Experiment
Sven-Olov Daunfeldt and Anders Bornhall (HUI Research and Dalarna University)



A natural experiment is used to identify the causal relationship between employment protection legislation and firm growth in Sweden. A reform of the last-in-first-out principle increased employment growth with over 4,000 additional jobs per year in firms with less than eleven employees. Firms with ten employees became 3.4 percentage points less likely to increase their workforce, indicating that an introduced threshold kept them from growing. Thus, employment protection legislation seems to act as a growth barrier for small firms.


TSven-Olov Daunfeldt is Research Director at HUI Research in Stockholm, and Professor of Economics at Dalarna University. Sven-Olov received his Ph.D from Umeå University in 2001, and has since then worked in a number of different research fields such as labour economics, public finance, political economy, and industrial organization. His research is nowadays primarily focused on firm dynamics, with a special emphasize on high-growth firms and the institutional conditions for firm growth. Sven-Olov has published his research in well-renowned journals such as the Journal of Population Economics, Oxford Economic Papers, Industrial and Corporate Change, and Small Business Economics.

5 June 
The emerging public and private ‘market’ for Green technologies. Who is doing what and why it matters
Mariana Mazzucato and Gregor Semieniuk (SPRU)


It is often argued that to push the world away from the brink of catastrophic climate change and other planetary boundaries (Rockstroem et al. 2009), a green technology revolution is necessary (Stern, 2006). Indeed, making the sea change to “green technology” requires not only profit-making companies that build renewable power-plants and their equipment on scales never seen before—and develop improve fuel cell efficiency at rates faster than in the IT chip revolution—it also requires the finance that takes on the risk of yet unproven or unprofitable technologies and processes, to enable this production in the first place.

Renewables continue to have a minor share in the energy mix (IEA 2014) and it is estimated that financing of renewables would need to be three times as much as it is currently in order to come close to enabling renewable energy capacities for emission reductions deemed apt to steer away from dangerous temperature rises (CPI 2014, IPCC 2014). Clearly, without finance, no “green revolution” (Aghion, Veugelers & Serre 2009; Mazzucato, 2014; Spratt, 2015). But also, without profit opportunities, no finance, at least not by risk-averse private actors.

The paper seeks to shed light on the evolving ‘market’ for green technologies by understanding who is financing what in different parts of the renewable energy market, and how this differs across the risk landscape (measured by different degrees of capital intensity, and market and technological risk), and over time. We focus on different types of public and private actors.

There is much to learn about the patterns of public and private actors in the innovation cycle, by looking at previous revolutions. Block and Keller (2011) find that public actors played the leading role in allowing technological revolutions in biotechnology, nanotechnology, and IT. For example, in biotechnology, the NIH funded both basic and applied research for decades before the private venture capitalists were willing to invest (Lazonick and Tulum, 2011). And as argued in Mazzucato (2013) it has been especially the high risk/uncertainty areas, across the entire innovation chain of these sectors (not only the ‘public good’ areas), that ‘entrepreneurial’ state institutions have had to lead on. Who is leading today the green tech revolution? What do we know about different actors across the risk landscape and over time? These questions are today urgent because the unlike previous revolutions, this one has a deadline (Schmitz 2015). Even with a carbon price or other demand-side incentives, there are still radical supply-side interventions required in the renewable market if we are to battle climate change in time.

This study will look at who is doing what in renewable energy finance. We use the Bloomberg New Energy Finance database to build insights on the relationship between public and private actors in the emerging green finance landscape. We look at their actions in different parts of the risk landscape (measured by capital intensity and technological and market risk), and over time. We first look at aggregates (the public sector vs. the private sector), and then at heterogeneity within these aggregates (public banks versus public R&D agencies), and at still a greater level of disaggregation (a public bank in China versus a public bank in Germany). We do the same for private finance (private finance as a whole; then venture capital vs. investment banks; and then different types of venture capital and so on).

For each actor we ask:
(1) what parts of the risk/uncertainty landscape are being invested in by different public and private actors, both aggregate and disaggregate (public vs. private; different types of public and private);
(2) how much heterogeneity is there within categories, and what does it reveal in terms of investment (e.g. within category; are some public banks more strategic market creating than others?);
(3) are returns higher for the actors in the high risk areas;
(4) are there greater tails for those actors that are more dispersed in terms of type of technologies they are investing in (e.g. does a bank that invests in both dirty and clean have more tails);
(5) do we see an evolution of actors over time depending on how risk changes, (e.g. a falling role of public banks in solar as solar becomes less uncertain?);

After building a forest view of the evolving landscapes, we look at the degree to which the patterns confirm one particular view (hypothesis) of private and public investments, compared to another. In particular we compare the market failure view to a more market shaping/crating view (Mazzucato, 2015). In a framework in which the public role is simply to fix market failures, is the kind of investment we are seeing by public banks too much, ie are they perhaps ‘crowding out’ private banks (Smallridge et al. 2013; Mazzucato and Penna, 2015)? Equally, do we see too much overlap between private and public, suggesting that perhaps the public actors are not being active enough in pushing the frontier of the renewable energy market? In order to make such judgments we must know what the private and public actors are actually actually investing in. The paper makes a contribution to answering this question.


Mariana Mazzucato

Welcome, I’m a Professor in the Economics of Innovation at the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) of the University of Sussex. My work is focused on the economics of innovation; finance and economic growth; and the role of the State in modern capitalism. I advise policy makers around the world on how to achieve economic growth that is both 'smart' - innovation led - and also more inclusive.My recent book, The Entrepreneurial State: debunking private vs. public sector myths, challenges the image of the lethargic, regulating state versus the dynamic business sector—using historical examples to show how some of the most high risk and courageous investments that led to revolutions in IT, biotechnology and nanotechnology, were sparked by public sector institutions. It offers a new way of thinking about political economy in the 21st century. My research is currently funded by the Ford Foundation, the European Commission and the Institute for New Economic Thinking.

Gregor Semieniuk

Web Profile available here

12 June
Figures not Numbers: Accounting, legitimacy and the making of ‘socie-ties’
Paolo Quattrone (University of Edinburgh)

• Paper(Restricted to UoS Users)


‘Legitimacy’ is a key concept in explaining individual and collective behaviour. Research on legitimacy has taken various routes in understating what makes social action morally acceptable: these range from the active role of agents in gaining social support and recognition, to the importance of taken for granted values, norms and beliefs in defining what counts as legitimate social action. More recently, research has shifted to practices and highlighted that ‘how’ actions are undertaken is as important as ‘what’ actions are undertaken. This paper aims to contribute to this literature by looking at how the material and visual dimension of the practice constitutes and important source of legitimacy for both social actors and the practice per se. Drawing on a survey of accounting practices in three paradigmatic eras in the history of accounting (i.e. Roman times, the Renaissance, and Modern accounting), we provide insights on how accounting, due to its material and visual symmetry, plays a role in the constitution and maintenance of proportioned links amongst members of a community. The visual and material arrangements of the account offer an instrument to constantly question and reinvent what means to have a proportionate and balanced social relationship. Accounts and their visual symmetry thus tie together members of a community, making ‘socie-ties’ sustainable.


Paolo Quattrone is Professor and Chair of Accounting, Governance and Social innovation at the University of Edinburgh Business School. Before joining Edinburgh, he was Professor of Accounting and Management Control at IE Business School, Madrid and Reader in Accounting at the Saïd Business School, and Official Student (i.e. Fellow) of Christ Church. A truly international scholar, he has conducted research and taught at the Universities of Catania, Kyoto, Madrid Carlos III, Manchester, Oxford, Palermo, Siena, Stanford and Luigi Bocconi of Milan. His work addresses questions related to the emergence and diffusion of accounting and managerial practices in historical and contemporary settings. He is particularly interested in researching the relationships between material accounting visualizations and decision making, strategizing, and governance.
Paolo Quattrone has published widely on the interface between management control and information technologies (especially ERPs), the history of accounting and management practices and thinking, and the managerialisation of higher education institutions and his works have appeared in he has published in journals such as Accounting, Organizations and Society, Contemporary Accounting Research and Administrative Science Quarterly. His research on the Jesuit administrative and accounting practices has recently been featured in the Financial Times.
As Fulbright New Century Scholar at the University of Stanford, he conducted research on changes in business models and education. Professor Quattrone also served on the Standing Scientific Committee of the European Accounting Association for several years, and is the associate editor of The British Accounting Review, and of Critical Perspectives of Accounting. He sits on the editorial boards of major academic journals such as Accounting Organizations and Society, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, the Accounting Historians Journal and Organization.
More recently, he teaches, consults, and researches in the area of Major Programme Management, where he is developing a series of case studies on reporting, governance and leadership practices to address issues of risk and uncertainty in complex organizations for the courses that he teaches for the MSc in Major Programme management at the Saïd Business School, Oxford, where he is currently an Associate Fellow, and for the Major Programme Leadership Academy of the UK Cabinet. His research on Major Programmes has received funding from the Chartered Institute of Management Accounting (CIMA).

Spring term 2015
23 January 
Actors and advocacy coalitions in the energy transition
Jochen Markard (ETH Zurich)

• Paper
• Slides


The background of this talk is that transitions research has been criticized for not paying sufficient attention to the diverging interests of the broad range of actors and the underlying power struggles of sustainability transitions. In recent years though, more and more scholars have studied system building activities, niche creation, network formation or defensive strategies of incumbent players. Moreover, transition researchers have started to work with, and integrate concepts from related fields such as management or political sciences. The ongoing energy transition is certainly a case of high relevance - for transition scholars as well as for policy makers and managers: new technologies and services are expanding rapidly (renewables, smart grids, e-mobility, demand management), new business models emerge and market liberalization is continuously changing longstanding organizational and regulatory structures of the sector. In this talk, I briefly discuss key issues of past and current energy transitions and then present findings from a study on advocacy coalitions in Swiss energy policy, where we investigated what coalitions exist and how they have changed over time. Our results show that advocacy coalitions have largely remained stable over the past 12 years. However, in 20, a clear majority of key actors supported fundamental policy changes in favor of an energy transition. These findings will be explained by the interaction and mutual transformation of the policy system and the socio-technical system. I conclude with some more general points for discussion on the role of actors in sustainability transitions.


Jochen Markard works as a Senior researcher and Lecturer at the Group for Sustainability and Technology within the Department of Management, Technology, and Economics of ETH Zurich. In his research, Jochen studies the interaction of technology, actor strategies, politics, society and culture. A focus is on the emergence of new technological fields, which have a potential to contribute to larger societal transformation and sustainability transition. Jochen works with a range of different theoretical perspectives in search for theory development and complementary explanations of complex phenomena. He applies concepts from innovation and transition studies, management studies, science and technology studies, and political sciences.

30 January
Measuring the Earth: the Anthropocene and the politics of the geosciences
Andrew Barry (UCL)


In a short article, published in the newsletter of the International Geosphere-Biosphere program in 2000, the geochemist Paul Crutzen and the biologist Eugene Stoermer proposed that the Earth had entered a new epoch, which they termed the Anthropocene. This period, they argued, was associated with a series of phenomena, including species extinction, the depletion of fossil fuel resources, and the release of sulphur and nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere, as well as the impact of greenhouse gases. Since 2000 the term has been taken up not just by geoscientists, but also by a growing number of writers in human and environmental geography, history, political theology, social anthropology, science and technology studies and the ‘ecological humanities’, as well as artists and curators. Yet despite the burgeoning enthusiasm for the idea of the Anthropocene, the meaning and utility of the term remains disputed, not least among geoscientists. In this paper, I discuss some of the key questions raised by the idea of the Anthropocene, focusing on the lack of agreement amongst geoscientists about when the Anthropocene actually began. The debate about the timing of the Anthropocene, I argue, is both a controversy about the science and politics of climate change, and a controversy about how geo and social scientists conceive of the relation between the geologic and human history.


Andrew Barry is Professor and Chair of Human Geography, University College London. Andrew completed his DPhil at SPRU and subsequently held posts at Brunel University and Goldsmiths College, and the School of Geography and Environment, Oxford University, before joining UCL in 2013. His most recent books are Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the Social and Natural Sciences (co-edited with Georgina Born, 2013) and Material Politics: Disputes along the Pipeline (2013). He is currently developing a series of new research projects on the political geography of the geosciences.

6 February 
Commodity chains, creative destruction and global inequality: a class analysis
Ben Selwyn (University of Sussex)



The majority of global commodity chain analysis is concerned with producer firm upgrading, because it is held to engender local-level development. This represents a myopic comprehension of the interaction of firms under capitalism. This article argues, in contrast, that lead firm chain governance and supplier firm upgrading attempts constitute strategies and practices that reproduce global poverty and inequality. Schumpeter’s concept of creative destruction represents a starting point in undertaking this endeavour. However, his formulation of capitalist competition ignores class and global economic relations. A Marxian conception of creative destruction, in contrast, rests upon an understanding of globally constituted class relations, which provides a novel perspective in comprehending and investigating processes that re-produce global poverty and inequality. The article substantiates these claims by examining cases of buyer-driven global commodity chains, and lead firm strategies of increasing labour exploitation throughout these chains.



13 February 
New Metrics for Economic Complexity: Measuring the Intangible Growth Potential of Countries
Luciano Pietronero (Institute of Complex Systems, ISC-CNR, and University of Rome Sapienza)



Economic Complexity refers to a new line of research which portrays economic growth as a process of evolution of ecosystems of technologies and industrial capabilities. Complex systems analysis, simulation, systems science methods, and big data capabilities offer new opportunities to empirically map technology and capability ecosystems of countries and industrial sectors, analyse their structure, understand their dynamics and measure economic complexity. This approach provides a new vision of a data driven fundamental economics in a strongly connected, globalised

In particular here we discuss the COMTRADE dataset which provides the matrix of countries and their exported products. According to the standard economic theory the specialization of countries towards certain specific products should be optimal. The observed data show that this is not the case and that diversification is actually more important. Specialization may be the leading effect in a static situation but the strongly dynamical globalized world market suggests instead that flexibility and adaptability are essential elements of competitiveness as in bio-systems. The situation is different for individual companies or sectors which seem instead to specialize only on few products. The crucial challenge is then how to turn these qualitative observations into quantitative variables. We have introduced a new metrics for the Fitness of countries and the Complexity of products which corresponds to the fixed point of the iteration of two nonlinear coupled equations and is a sort of economic version of the Google Page rank approach. However, in this case, the nonlinearity is crucial because it represents the fact that the upper bound on the Complexity of a product is given by the less developed country that can produce it. The information provided by the new metrics can be used in various ways. The direct comparison of the Fitness with the country GDP gives an assessment of the non-expressed potential of the country. This can be used as a predictor of GDP evolution or stock index and sectors perfomances. These results are also useful for risk analysis, planning of industrial development and strategies to exit from the “poverty trap”. The global economic dynamics shows a large degree of heterogeneity which implies that countries which are in a certain zone of the parameter space evolve in a predictable way while others show a chaotic behaviour. This heterogeneous dynamics is also outside the usual economic concepts. When dealing with heterogeneous systems, in fact, the usual tools of linear regressions become of inappropriate. Recently we have developed a specific strategy to control and forecast the evolution of the entire Product Space Network. This allows us to perform a more detailed analysis of the evolution focused on the individual industrial sectors.


Luciano Pietronero studied physics in Rome and was a research scientist at Xerox Webster and Brown Boveri until 1983. He then moved to Groningen, where he was professor in condensed matter theory (1983-87). Since 1987 he is professor of physics at the University of Rome "Sapienza”. Founder and director of the Institute for Complex Systems of CNR (2004-2014). Broad international experience in academic and industrial enviroments. In 2008 he received the Fermi Prize (highest award of the Italian Physical Society).
Research interests  Condensed Matter Theory; High-temperature superconductivity; Statistical Physics; Fractal Growth; Self-Organized-Criticality; Complex Systems and its interdisciplinary applications. Recent activity in Economic Complexity

20 February
Entrepreneurship - individual factors in context
Uwe Cantner (Friedrich Schiller University Jena)

• Paper (1) (Restricted to UoS Users)
Paper (2)
Paper (3)


The presentaiton will be based on three papers. In order of relevance:

1. "Innovation, personality traits and entrepreneurial failure" Studies on moderators of the innovation performance relationship in entrepreneurship research are scarce. Thus in this paper we use a dataset consisting of 416 entrepreneurs from the German federal state of Thuringia in order to examine the moderating effect of the Big Five personality traits extraversion, openness and conscientiousness on the relationship between entrepreneurial innovation and exit by failure in highly innovative industries. Correspondingly, we identify exit by failure with the help of bankruptcy information and self reports. In order to account for self selection into innovative entrepreneurship, stratification on the propensity score is utilized to overcome self selection bias. After accounting for self- selection into innovation, we find that personality moderates the innovation failure relationship. Extraversion strengthens the negative effect of innovation on exit by failure. In contrast, openness and conscientiousness weaken the negative effect of innovation on entrepreneurial failure.

2. "Schumpeter’s Entrepreneur: Psychological, Sociological and Economic Dimensions". In this paper we investigate Schumpeter’s description of an entrepreneur as an actor deviating from the mainstream along psychological, sociological and economic dimensions. We integrate basic psychological characteristics described by the Five-Factor model of per- sonality as well as motivational and contextual predictors of entrepreneurial intentions pro- posed by the theory of planned behavior, social identity theory, and self-categorization theory into a framework explaining the individual scientist’s intentions to become an entrepreneur. Our analysis finds that a rather low, but non-negligible share of scientists show intentions which are based on a rather Schumpeterian attitude whereas the majority follows the peers. The finding that these intentions rather determined by cognitive and social dimensions than by basic psychological traits leaves room for policy intervention.

3. "Regional characteristics, opportunity perception and entrepreneurial activities". This article seeks to better understand the link between regional characteristics and individual entrepreneurship. We combine individual-level Global Entrepreneurship Monitor data for Western Germany with regional-level data, using multilevel analysis to test our hypotheses. We find no direct link between regional knowledge creation, the economic context and an entrepreneurial culture on the one side and individual business start-up intentions and start-up activity on the other side. However, our findings point to the importance of an indirect effect of regional characteristics as knowledge creation, the economic context and an entrepreneurial culture have an effect on the individual perception of founding opportunities, which in turn predicted start-up intentions and activity.


Uwe Cantner is full Professor of economics, Chair of microeconomics, and Vice-President of the University of Jena. He is the director of “The Jena Graduate School Human Behaviour in Social and Economic Change", and the spokesman of DFG Graduate College “The Economics of Innovative Change". He was president of the International Joseph A. Schumpeter Society from 2012 to 2014. Since 2002 he is editor of the Journal of Evolutionary Economics. His main fields of research are economics of innovation, evolutionary economics, industrial economics, and productivity and efficiency measurement, on which he has extensively published.

27 February
The challenge of global food security and why it matters to UK consumers – early reflections as the chief scientific adviser for the FSA
Guy Poppy (University of Southampton)

• Background Material (1)
• Background Material (2)




Professor Guy Poppy took up his role as the FSA’s Chief Scientific Adviser in August 2014. He will also continue with his research in global food security at the University of Southampton, where he is Professor of Ecology and the Director of Interdisciplinary Research.

Professor Poppy has significant research experience in food systems and food security and has advised governments around the world on these issues. He has published over 100 peer-reviewed papers including a number of highly cited articles on risk assessment, risk analysis and risk communication. He is currently a member of the Research Excellence Framework (REF2014) panel assessing the quality of agriculture, food and veterinary science in the UK.

A graduate of Imperial College and Oxford University, Professor Poppy previously worked at Rothamsted Research, becoming Principal Scientific Officer. He left in 2001 to join the University of Southampton where he has been Head of Biodiversity and Ecology and, more recently, Head of Biological Sciences.

As the FSA’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Poppy will provide expert scientific advice to the UK government and play a critical role in helping to understand how scientific developments will shape the work of the FSA as well as the strategic implications of any possible changes.

6 March
User-driven innovation, transitions and reinvention in the Long Twentieth Century
Ruth Oldenziel (Eindhoven University of Technology)

• Paper


The notion that users matter in the making of innovations has become a truism. Yet, there is a tendency to downplay the power relations, everyday practices, and social movements as a potential locus of innovation. During the long twentieth century, user-based movements have been important in shaping innovations and innovations. The question is not only what makes them effective, but how historical context matters for user-driven movements to gain momentum and succeed.


Ruth Oldenziel is professor at Eindhoven University of Technology and a Visiting Fellow at the LMU Rachel Carson Center for Environment and Society, Munich, 2013-2015. She received her PhD from Yale University in American History (1992). Her historically-based publications include books and articles in the area of American, gender, and technology studies, among them Cycling and Recycling (Berghahn 2015) edited with Helmuth Trischler; Hacking Europe, edited with Gerard Alberts (Springer 2014); “Recycle and Reuse,” edited with Heike Weber (special issue of European Contemporary History 2013); Cold War Kitchen, edited with Karin Zachmann (MIT 2009); Gender and Technology, edited with Arwen Mohun and Nina Lerman (Hopkins 2003). Her most recent book with Mikael Hård, is entitled Consumers, Users, Rebels: the People who Shaped Europe (Palgrave 2013) with Mikael Hard. She is currently working on a monograph “Global Cycling: Paths towards Sustainability.

13 March
Women do not play their aces - Shying away leads to distorted ability perceptions
Mirjam van Praag (Copenhagen Business School)


Laboratory experiments have demonstrated a gender gap in attitudes towards risk and competition. This gender gap is often cited as a reason why women are missing from the top of hierarchies. Testing this explanation in real life situations is challenging due to confounding factors. We exploit a large dataset from an online card game community to test this explanation in a stylized environment with important real life features: self-selection into a competitive, risky and male-dominated environment; strategic interaction between players; repetition and feedback; intrinsically motivated participants. We indeed demonstrate gender differences in playing behavior: female players are less likely to initiate games, play ‘solo’ or increase the stakes. At the same time, female players have substantially lower cumulative scores than male players. This gender score gap is not a reflection of ability differences: given their choices, women are as likely as men to win the games they play. We explain the relatively low scores of women with their more passive, “defensive” attitude towards risky and competitive situations. Our study thus demonstrates a negative consequence of “shying away”: it makes female players appear less competent than men, despite no gender difference in on-task performance.


Prof Dr C.Mirjam van Praag is Maersk Mc-Kinney Møller Professor of Entrepreneurship at Copenhagen Business School, Department of Innovation and Organizational Economics. Besides she holds an unpaid position as a Professor of Entrepreneurship and Organization in the Amsterdam Business School of the University of Amsterdam. She is also a Crown Member of the Socioeconomic Council (SER) of the Dutch government.
Van Praag’s research, that is widely published in international academic journals, studies Economics of Entrepreneurship (e.g., Human Capital, Teams, Entrepreneurship and the Household) often using (field or natural) experiments. Besides entrepreneurship, she is also an active researcher in the field of Personnel Economics (performance measurement and rewards) and Behavorial Economics.

In the past, Mirjam was employed as a consultant with The Boston Consulting Group, as a financial analyst with Procter & Gamble and as a research consultant with GFK Intomart. She has served as a non-executive member on various boards, both in the public and the private sector. Mirjam was the founding director of the Amsterdam Center for Entrepreneurship. Mirjam van Praag is an econometrician (MSc and Phd UvA) and she has a daughter (Sarah, 1998) and a son (Boaz, 1999).

20 March
Transformations towards sustainability: Reflections on action, knowledge, innovation and governance
Sybille van den Hove  (Autonomous University of Barcelona)

 Background Material
  Paper (1)
• Paper (2)


An impressionist journey around the theme of transformations for sustainability, including explorations and reflections on policy action, precaution, knowledge, science-policy interfaces, innovation, and governance, flavoured with some digressions on myths and asymmetries.


Dr Sybille van den Hove is Director of Median, a small research, teaching and consulting company in Barcelona and Visiting Professor at the Institute for Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) of the Autonomous University of Barcelona. Her background is in physics and ecological economics. Her research interests all focus on sustainability transformation. They include sustainability governance; decision-making and policy formation under conditions of complexity; science-policy interfaces; integration of natural and social sciences research; environmental research strategies; and environmental strategies of corporations. Currently she works on biodiversity governance (including in particular deep-sea issues); precaution and innovation; and business transformations towards sustainability. She is the chair of the Scientific Committee of the European Environment Agency.

27 March
Medusa at the Hairdresser : Untangling the Anthropocene through Digital Methods
Tommaso Venturini (Science Po, Medialab)


In the last few years, our societies have been confronted to a new kind of problems. Our planet – once so vast and unexplored – seems to have shrunk around us constraining our actions with its multiple ecological and economical fragilities. Welcome to the anthropocene! After centuries spent in trying to rule the world, we suddenly realize how tiny is our kingdom and, as the air fill with CO2, how suffocating is its atmosphere. What’s worse, we find ourselves utterly unprepared to deal with the situation we have created. The more we strive to force the knots we tied, the more they seem to tighten around us.

The knots that hold us cannot be slashed, but (and it’s our only hope) they might be untied. The fabric of our natural and social interdependencies is complex, but not impenetrable. And this is where social sciences may help, by hijacking one of the strongest forces of modernization (the proliferation of digital inscriptions) and turning it into a source of understanding. Turning inscriptions into traces, and following them as threads through the maze of collective life, we can try to unfold the complexity of our small world and learn to live with it.


Tommaso Venturini is associate professor and research coordinator at the Sciences Po médialab. He is the leading scientist of the projects EMAPS and MEDEA and his research activities focus on digital methods, Controversy Mapping, Social Modernization. He teaches Controversy Mapping, Digital Methods, Data Journalism and STS at graduate and undergraduate level. He has been trained in sociology and media studies at the University of Bologna, completed a PhD in Society of Information at the University of Milano Bicocca and a post-doc in Sociology of Modernity at the Department of Philosophy and Communication of the University of Bologna. He has been visiting student at UCLA and visiting researcher at the CETCOPRA of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne.


10 April
Engineering life: policies and promises
Jane Calvert (University of Edinburgh)


In this presentation I will discuss my new research project: ‘Engineering Life’, which examines the emerging field of synthetic biology. I will focus on ‘policies and promises’, which is one of the three strands of the project. Work in this strand will attempt to situate synthetic biology in its broader policy context, and will explore the promises made about the field’s contribution to economic growth, and the pressures on it to deliver job creation and industrialisation. Such pressures are clearly not new, but they take on interesting nuances in synthetic biology. For example, the field models itself on engineering and aspires to develop standardised interchangeable biological parts. This research agenda does not necessarily lend itself to rapid commercialisation.

Synthetic biology is also a field that is perceived to be ‘contentious’, which means that social scientists have been involved from the outset, initially as part of programmes on ‘Ethical Legal and Social Issues/Aspects’, but more recently under the heading of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). I will ask in what senses the large-scale involvement of social scientists can be understood as a form of governance of this emerging biotechnology. I will end by asking whether RRI might help connect science and technology studies and innovation studies. This relates to my longstanding interest in the relationship between these two fields (particularly in respect to normativity, reflexivity and critique).


Jane Calvert is a Reader in Science, Technology and Innovation Studies at the University of Edinburgh. She spent many happy years at the University of Sussex, first as an undergraduate in Human Sciences and then as a PhD student in SPRU. Her current research, funded by a European Research Council Consolidator grant, focuses on attempts to engineer living things in the emerging field of synthetic biology, which raises intriguing questions about design, evolution and ‘life’. She is also interested the governance of emerging technologies, intellectual property and open source, and interdisciplinary collaborations of all sorts. She is a co-author of the book Synthetic Aesthetics: Investigating Synthetic Biology’s Designs on Nature, published by MIT Press in 2014.

17 April
Too fast to live? Effects of growth on survival across the growth distribution
Alex Coad with J. S. Frankish, R. G. Roberts, D. J. Storey (SPRU)


here are several theoretical reasons to suppose that excessive fast growth may harm survival: ‘Penrose effects’ operating through limits to managerial attention, cash flow problems, ‘time compression diseconomies’ and convex adjustment costs that make costs exceed revenues, and difficulties in quickly finding good matches on labour markets. We explore survival across the growth rate distribution using a rich dataset of a cohort of 6247 new ventures, using customer records data from a major UK bank. We measure non-survival though termination of the business account (as opposed to continuation or switching the account to a rival bank). Although growth enhances survival on average, the highest decile of the growth distribution never has the highest survival, and there are significant non-linearities (specification tests prefer a seventh-order polynomial). Our findings have implications for the current policy interest in high growth firms.


Alex Coad has been a research fellow at SPRU since October 2010 (Senior Research Fellow as from October 2011), and is Associate Editor at Research Policy. He has published almost 50 articles in international peer-reviewed journals, such as Research Policy, Journal of Business Venturing, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Industrial and Corporate Change, and Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. His research interests are mainly focused on firm performance, entrepreneurship, economics of innovation, and happiness economics. Alex's prize-winning research has received over 2000 citations on google-scholar, with an H-index of 22.

Autumn term 2014
3 October
How poor farmers can participate in choosing technology development options
Erik Millstone (SPRU)


Erik Millstone is a professor of science policy at the University of Sussex. Since 1974 he has been researching into the causes, consequences and regulation of technological change in the food and chemical industries. Since 1988 he has been researching the role of scientific experts, evidence and advice in public policymaking. Since the mid-1980s he has actively engaged with public policymakers in the UK, in other countries and in international organisations with a view to influencing policy developments

10 October
Services, needs, vulnerability: New ways of conceptualizing and addressing domestic energy deprivation
Stefan Bouzarovski (University of Manchester)


This paper charts the emergent body of new approaches towards the research, analysis and amelioration of energy deprivation in the home. It starts from the premise that all forms of energy and fuel poverty - in developed and developing countries alike - are underpinned by a common condition: The inability to attain a socially- and materially-necessitated level of domestic energy services. Emphasizing the functionings and capabilities provided by energy use in the residential domain has led us to question binary divisions between the fields of 'fuel poverty' and 'energy poverty' within, respectively, the global North and South. In order to move towards an integrated understanding of energy service poverty, we highlight the multiple socio-technical pathways that prevent the effective fulfilment of household energy needs. Based on such thinking, the paper identifies the main components and implications of 'energy vulnerability' frameworks, whereby the driving forces of domestic energy deprivation are seen through a dynamic approach that emphasizes issues of resilience and risk. Using a case study of urban households living in transitory household arrangements in two European cities, this paradigm serves as a basis for emphasizing the predicament faced by groups who fall outside mainstream policy and scientific agendas.


Stefan Bouzarovski is Professor of Geography and Director of the Centre for Urban Resilience and Energy at the University of Manchester. He undertakes academic and policy-based research on issues of urban fuel poverty and sustainability transitions more generally. He has authored more than 60 publications (including several books) and led approximately 30 international research projects on such topics, having held full time and visiting posts at 10 universities in the UK and overseas. Stefan's academic research has influenced the work of UK local authorities, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and the UK Parliament. He has also worked together with the European Commission and Parliament, the World Bank, the World Health Organization and the International Energy Agency.

17 October
Fashions in science and innovation policy, past and present
Arie Rip (University of Twente)


A number of important issues in science and innovation policy, like 'Big Science' (from late 1950s onwards), 'Key Technologies' and now 'Grand Challenges' and 'Responsible Research and Innovation', have also the trappings of a fashion, including the use of a few words to capture the thrust and allowing it to travel. An important further question is what remains, after the fashion has passed: fashions leave traces, also in terms of institutional arrangements. I will analyse a few cases, and on that basis offer an understanding of de facto science and innovation policy.


Arie Rip is Professor of Philosophy of Science and Technology in the School of Management and Governance of the University of Twente. He is a key figure in the Centre for Studies of Science, Technology and Society. The Centre comprises studies of new technology and users, long-term developments of technology and the consumer society, technology assessment, in particular constructive technology assessment of nanotechnology, foresight as a science and technology policy instrument, national systems of research and innovation and their evolution. Arie Rip is involved in evaluation studies, as of the Norwegian Research Council, and the research management of Flemish Universities, and international comparative science policy studies. He was a member of the EU High-Level Expert Group on Foresighting the New Technology Wave, and is actively promoting international collaboration in issues of nanotechnology and society. He is also Visiting Professor at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Arie Rip studied chemistry and philosophy at the University of Leiden, did research in physical chemistry, and switched to Chemistry and Society teaching and research, and Science, Technology and Society studies more generally. He was guest professor of science dynamics at the University of Amsterdam (1984-1987), and then moved to his present position at the University of Twente. He was President of the international Society for Social Studies of Science (1988-1989). His work in science dynamics, technology dynamics, and constructive technology assessment is widely acclaimed.

24 October
Governance Innovation for Sustainable Global Value Creation
Christos Pitelis (University of Bath)


The aim of this article is to discuss the nature and conditions for constructing alternative, more accountable supranational governance for world-wide economic sustainability. We approximate world-wide economic sustainability with the sustainability of global economic value creation and discuss the impact of value appropriation-capture by powerful economic agents, such as multinational enterprises (MNEs) and nation states, on the sustainability of global value creation. We suggest that corporate governance should be aligned with public and supra-national governance, in a way that addresses a number of hierarchically layered ‘agencies’, not merely the almost exclusively discussed ‘agency’ between owners and managers (Klein et al., 2012). We propose that the diagnosis of a complex set of hierarchically layered “agencies” is a major prerequisite for constructing supra-national governance for world-wide economic sustainability. Doing so is critical given one of the biggest systemic failures of capitalism, and the failure of mainstream economics to anticipate and regulate it. We submit that such anticipation and regulation, requires recognition of the importance of institutional and organizational innovations, which help challenge concentrated and embedded power structures that prejudice economic sustainability.

31 October
Blade Runner economics: Will innovation lead us out of crisis?
Daniele Archibugi (Italian National Research Council and University of London, Birkbeck College)


Schumpeterian economics has for long associated phases of economic expansion to the introduction in the economic and social fabric of successful innovations. On the contrary, economic depressions have often been explained as the inability, or the lack of availability, of innovations. Can the economic crisis started in 2008 be explained as an inability to introduce innovations in the economic system? And, conversely, will a new stream of innovation be lead an economic recovery?

These issues are not new: after the economic crisis of the 1970s, it was repeatedly asked which innovations could lead a new development phase. In the early 1980s, contrasting views where discussed at the Science Policy Research Unit of the Sussex University: Christopher Freeman was leading those who believed that only revolutionary changes in the economic structure could lead to a long-term recovery, while Keith Pavitt stressed the importance of accumulated skills and competences to sustain economic life.

These hypotheses were tested against some of the emerging technologies of the period: nuclear energy, bio-technology and ICTs were scrutinised to assess their potential impact in terms of employment generation. After thirty years, it can be said that nuclear energy and bio-technology have not delivered (yet?) their promises, while ICTs have become much more important than expected. In particular, they have managed, as predicted by Freeman, not only to generate a successful new industry, but also to change the operation of all other industries.
These predictions were the result of an explicit model about when and how new technologies can become the driving force of economic and social development. What can does the model tell about the reality of the XXI century?

The paper presents an attempt to identify what could be the driving technologies of the next economic wave on the ground of: 1) Cost reductions in a wide range of products and services; 2) Improvement of the technical characteristics of products and services; 3) Social and political acceptability; 4) Environmental acceptability; 5) Pervasiveness in the overall economic system; 6) Emergence of new companies, often also with a distinctive managerial organization.


Daniele Archibugi is a Research Director at the Italian National Research Council (CNR-IRPPS) in Rome, and Professor of Innovation, Governance and Public Policy at the University of London, Birkbeck College. He works on the economics and policy of science, technology and innovation and on the political theory of international relations.

He has chaired the European Commission's Expert Group on "A Wide Opening of the European Research Area to the World" and he has been a member of the Expert Group of the European Commission "Global Europe 2030/2050".

In the field of innovation studies, he co-authored The Technological Specialization of Advanced Countries, prefaced by the then EC President Jacques Delors  (Kluwer, 1992) and co-edited with Bengt-Aake Lundval, The Globalizing Learning Economy (Oxford University Press, 2001). His latest co-authored book is Innovation and Economic Crisis. Lessons and Prospects from the Economic Downturn (Routledge, 2011). He is now co-editing, with Andrea Filippetti, The Handbook of Global Science, Technology and Innovation (Wiley, 2015)

7 November
Innovation in the energy sector: paradigm-busting or paradigm-reinforcing
Jim Skea (Imperial College London)


The energy sector is well known for the relatively modest level of resource that it devotes to research and development (R&D). However, the incremental pace of energy innovation has speeded up in the last decade as measured by public sector R&D budgets, deployment of alternative technologies and novel institutional arrangements. While much of this effort has been targeted at technologies that promise to reduce carbon emissions, there have also been major innovations that extend the fossil fuel resource base and reduce the cost of extraction. The last decade’s developments can be seen in terms of a challenge to the existing energy paradigm being met by a renewed innovative response focused on conventional fuels and technologies, echoing major, decades-long shifts that have occurred in the past.

The talk aims to articulate more clearly the overall pattern of developments drawing on empirical evidence relating to the public sector R&D portfolio, private sector activity and evolving institutional arrangements in a number of jurisdictions. It will also draw attention to the growing level of activity in energy innovation, as measured by level of activity and deployment of new technologies, this being driven by the ‘pull’ from public policies and market opportunities and a ‘push’ from scientific advances in ICT, materials science and the biosciences. It will also highlight the changing shape of energy R&D portfolios and the balance between public and private sector activities.

A central conclusion is that there is a tension between the drive, on the part of public bodies, to transform energy systems, mainly motivated by the need to combat global climate change, and more self-motivated private sector activity which serves to reinforce and extend existing patterns of energy provision. The paper addresses, but not answer definitively, the key question as to whether technological change is enabling or frustrating ambitious carbon goals, and on what timescales.


Jim Skea has research interests in energy, climate change and technological innovation. He has been RCUK Energy Strategy Fellow since April 2012 and a Professor of Sustainable Energy at Imperial College since 2009. He was Research Director of the UK Energy Research Centre 2004-12 and Director of the Policy Studies Institute 1998-2004.

He has operated at the interface between research, policy-making and business throughout his career. He is a member of the UK Committee on Climate Change and a Vice-Chair of IPCC Working Group III. He acted as Launch Director for the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership. He was awarded a CBE for services to sustainable energy in 2013 and an OBE for services to sustainable transport in 2004.

14 November
The Impact of Institutional Reforms on Scientific Change: Changing conditions for developing four intellectual innovations in four European countries
Richard Whitley (University of Manchester)


Recent institutional reforms to the funding and governance of universities and public research institutes in many OECD countries are altering the distribution of authority over scientists' research strategies and careers. These shifts can be expected to affect researchers' ability and commitment to work on long term projects with highly uncertain outcomes through changing the level of protected space afforded to them and the flexibility of standards governing the allocation of resources and reputations in different disciplines and science systems. Variations in the extent of protected space and flexibility encourage and support research on different kinds of problems as can be seen in the development of four innovations in the physical, biological and human sciences, which varied in their resource requirements and challenge to dominant priorities and approaches. The levels of protected space and flexibility that supported these developments were provided in different ways and to different extents in four European countries that have implemented institutional reforms to varying degrees. These differences, and their consequences, suggest how changes to the funding and governance of academic research can be expected to affect the level and distribution of protected space and flexibility provided to different groups of scientists, and so their capabilities for, and commitment to, developing different kinds of intellectual innovations.


Richard Whitley is Emeritus Professor of Organizational Sociology at Manchester Business School, University of Manchester. Recent authored and edited books include: Capitalisms and Capitalism in the Twenty First Century (2012); Reconfiguring Knowledge Production (2010); Business Systems and Organizational Capabilities (2007); Changing Capitalisms? (2005); The Multinational Firm (2001); Divergent Capitalisms (1999) (all published by Oxford University Press), and The Changing Governance of the Sciences (2007) (Springer); Competing Capitalisms (2002) (Edward Elgar).

In 1998-99 he served as the Chair of the European Group for Organizational Studies and in 1999-2000 was the President of the Society for the Advancement of Socio-economics. In 2007 he was elected a Foreign Member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities. Current research interests include the study of how changing institutional regimes are affecting business systems in East Asia, how the changing governance of public science systems and universities is affecting scientific innovations in different countries and how different kinds of artistic innovations are supported by different kinds of art worlds.

21 November
“We need people who can dream of things that never were”: the Defiant Islands of Marine Renewable Energy
Laura Watts (IT University of Copenhagen)


When you arrive as a visitor to the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) in the islands of Orkney this is what you read, painted over the entrance: “The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need people who can dream of things that never were”.

Perhaps you are part of a BBC film crew, or a delegation from Silicon Valley, or a Science and Technology Studies (STS) ethnographer like myself, come to these remote islands off the northeast coast of Scotland. But you are here because this is a world centre for testing marine energy devices, that is, making electricity from the waves and tides. Estimates are that UK wave and tide power could generate 30-50 GW,1
which is 20% of the UK’s current electricity demand. 25% of Europe’s entire tidal energy resource is in Scotland, and much of that is in Orkney.

The quote is from John F. Kennedy, the president who “chose to go to the Moon in this decade”. The sheer social, technical, infrastructural, and environmental complexity of marine energy has been likened, by the Director of EMEC, to the Space Age, or to going from the Wright Brother’s first flight to an entire airline industry. This is a new energy industry, almost unlike any industry that has gone before. Yet, this industry is being made, largely, in this northern archipelago of islands that is closer to the Arctic circle than to London and its sites of energy policy-making. This once periphery is now becoming more central. Yet, it is at the geographic periphery of the UK, and at the periphery of the National Grid, and this has substantial social and technical effects. So, this paper will tell the story of the making of marine energy at the edge, and how these islands stand defiant in the face of centralised energy policy and decision-making.


Laura Watss is Writer, Poet, Ethnographer, and Associate Professor at IT University of Copenhagen. She is interested in the effect of landscape on how the future is imagined and made in everyday practice. How might the future be made differently in different places? For the last fifteen years she has worked with the telecoms, transport, and renewable energy industries to reconsider how the future gets made in high-tech industry, and how it might be made otherwise.

28 November
Is history of use to development policy? Reflections on the "Green Revolution"
Jonathon Harwood (University of Manchester)


Most members of the development community take for granted that policy should be evidence-based. Accordingly declarations of the need to ‘learn the lessons of history’ are a commonplace in the literature. At the same time there are also indications that this task is not taken very seriously in policy formulation. If one considers attempts since about 1900, in Europe as well as in the global South, to adapt plant breeding technology to the needs of small farmers, it appears that agricultural development programmes since 1945 have learned very little from the success or failure of earlier approaches. The evidence suggests that this neglect has been the result less of ignorance of past experience than of indifference toward it. The talk concludes by considering possible reasons for this.


Jonathan Harwood is emeritus Professor of the History of Science & Technology at the University of Manchester and Visiting Professor at Kings College London. His most recent book is Europe's Green Revolution and Others Since (Routledge 2012)

5 December
Encountering difference, registering dissent: an analysis of Indian biofuel policy-making as 'good politics'
Saurabh Arora (SPRU)


Following its 2003 biodiesel mission, the Indian national government released itsbiofuel policy in December 2009. Focussing on biodiesel aspects of the policy, we evaluate if the making of the policy can be considered as ‘good politics’. To carry out this evaluation, we conceptualize policy as a set of propositions that have been progressively assembled. This assembling process constitutes ‘good politics’ if the propositions were well-articulated in their making. By well-articulated, we do not simply mean that a proposition is clear in its formulation but rather that it has registered the agency of multiple different discursive, material and procedural entities. The process of assembling well-articulated propositions then must have, a) invited and accommodated as many different entities as possible without unifying their actions/voices into a repetitive singularity; b) registered the voices of entities that were hitherto mute; c) allowed the registered entities to successively challenge and recompose the propositions as well as to dispute political (and epistemological) authority; d) produced a set of propositions that are not easily transferrable between different socio-ecological situations. Recording perspectives of a wide range of actors on the policy-making process, we argue that the 2009 policy partially responded to many entities’ recalcitrance. However, the registration of the entities’ dispute to authority was limited to a small part of the policy and did not get extended to the policy as a whole. The policy also failed to register the voices of some crucial entities. Finally, we conclude that our normative evaluation framework needs to discriminate better between more and less crucial voices to register in specific socio-ecological situations.


Saurabh is Sr Lecturer at SPRU, since January 2014. Using theory and methods from Science Technology and Society Studies, and Innovation Studies, his research focuses on the design and implementation of standards and public policies for 'sustainable' food and biofuels, the role of history in the emergence of innovation systems in India and Tanzania, and the consequences of classifications of people and lands in colonial India."

12 December
Learning by failing: An empirical exercise on CIS data
Riccardo Leoncini (University of Bologna)

To access 'Background Paper' you need to sign in using your Sussex credentials. 


Failure to innovate has been only recently recognized as one of the key elements in determining successful firms' innovative performance. However, as this literature focuses only on the determinants of firms' failure, it neglects the role of failure in spurring innovative activity. In this paper, the relationship between innovative performance and failure to innovate is empirically tested, through a two step econometric model, on the 2008 CIS Innovation survey dataset. The main results of the paper are, first, that failure is negatively correlated to the firms' experience (proxies by R&D), and to the acquisition of external knowledge, both directly, through productive links in product and process innovation, and indirectly, through vicarious learning of the results of similar firms (that has a negative impact on failure only for firms engaged in R&D). The second step reveals that failure in turn has a positive impact on the production of new to the market innovation. Finally, an additional test is performed on still ongoing innovation (rather than abandoned), and the results show a minor impact on innovation activity.


Riccardo Leoncini is Full Professor of Economics at Alma Mater Studiorum – University of Bologna, and Research Associate at CERIS-CNR – National Research Council. He is member of the Board of the Department of Economics, and former Co-ordinator of the Doctoral Program in Law & Economics and of the Master Program in Development, Innovation and Change, both at the University of Bologna. His current research interests include the analysis of technological change and innovation, of local systems of production, and the theory of the firm.

Summer term 2014
16 May
Infrastructures, technologies and practices: implications for energy demand
Elizabeth Shove (Lancaster University)

Chair: Johan Schot

Abstract and bio 16 May 2014 [PDF 65.55KB]

Friday seminar series video - Elizabeth Shove

23 May
Where is the toilet please? Or why the sanitation sectoral innovation system failed to perform in Rural India
Shyama Ramani (UNU-MERIT)

May 23 - Shyama Ramani (UNU-MERIT)

Chair: Tommaso Ciarli

23rd May - Abstract and bio [PDF 152.70KB]

23rd May Friday Seminar - Background Material [PDF 556.81KB]

Friday seminar series video - Shyama Ramani 

30 May
What can vaccines teach us about globalization? A Dutch story - to start with
Stuart Blume (University of Amsterdam)

Chair: Ohid Yaqub

30 May - Abstract and bio [PDF 181.90KB]

30 May - Background material [PDF 137.16KB]

6 June
Writing the Rules for Europe. Experts, Cartels and International Organizations
Johan Schot (SPRU)

Chair: Andy Stirling

6th June - Bio [PDF 305.89KB]

6th June - Background material [PDF 199.36KB]

6th June - Background material B [PDF 444.75KB]

Friday seminar series video - Johan Schot

13 June
Is Entrepreneurship Necessarily Good? Lessons for Developed and Developing Countries
Marco Vivarelli (Catholic University of Piazenza)

Chair: Mariana Mazzucato

13 June - Abstract and bio [PDF 175.41KB]

13 June - Background material [PDF 210.50KB]

Friday seminar series video - Marco Vivarelli

Spring term 2014
11 April Frans Berkhout 
(King's College, London)

Technology Policy and Economic Performance

Andy Stirling
4 April Giorgio Sirilli 
(CNR, Italian Research Council)

Science and technology policy and indicators. The OECD Frascati Manual

Ben Martin
28 March Morris Teubal 
(Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Strategic and Adaptive Policy Targeting: Theory and an Example

Andy Stirling
21 March Ken Guy 

Challenges and Future Directions in Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Policy

Parimal Patel

14 March

Silvia Massini 
(University Of Manchester)

Is more always better in alliances? The effect of partner similarity in innovation alliances

Josh Siepel

7 March

Carolina Castaldi 
(Technical University of Eindhoven)

Related variety, unrelated variety and technological breakthroughs: an analysis of US state-level patenting

Carolina Castaldi, 7 March 2014



Maria Savona

28 February

Richard Wooley 
(Ingenio, CSIC-Universidad Poiltècnica de València)

Mobilising knowledge and expertise for Rare Diseases in Europe

Richard Wooley, 28 February 2014

Ismael Rafols

21 February

Ehsan Masood 
(Research Fortnight and Research Europe)

The Story of GDP and the Making and Unmaking of the Modern World

Ehsan Masood, 21 February 2014

James Wilsdon

14 February

Tom Barrent, Oliver Chadwick 
(Department for Transport)

Please note this seminar will be held in the Lecture Theatre AS01, Shawcross Building

How should we incentivise advanced transport fuel technologies?

Tom Barrent/Oliver Chadwick, 14 February 2014

Jenny Lieu

7 February

Koen Frenken 
(Utrecht University)
Gaston Heimeriks

University rankings and its determinants

Koen Frenken, 7 February 2014

Ed Steinmueller

31 January Raphael Kaplinski 
(SPRU and Open University)

Global Value Chains, Where They Came From, Where They Are Going And Why This Is Important

Raphi Kaplinsky, 31 January 2014

Martin Bel

24 January Jonathan Haskel 
(Imperial College London)

The Contribution of Science to UK Economic Growth

Johnathan Haskel, 24 January 2014

Mariana Mazzucato

17 January 

Allam Ahmed 
Mohamed Elhag 

SMART KM MODEL: Integrated knowledge management revolutionary approach for organisational excellence


Allam Ahmed/Mohamed Elhag, 17 January 2014


Matias Ramirez

Autumn term 2013
4 October

Pierre Mohnen (Maastricht University & UNU-Merit)

Revisiting the Porter hypothesis: An empirical analysis of green innovation for the Netherlands

Abstract and bio [PDF 66.73KB] | Paper [PDF 286.41KB] | Presentation [PDF 408.95KB]

Pierre Mohnen, 4 October 2013

11 October  Alex Coad, Marc Cowling, Paul Nightingale, Gabriele Pellegrino, Maria Savona, Josh Siepel (SPRU)

 UK innovation survey: Highly innovative firms and growth

Paul Nightingale, Alex Coad et al, 11 October 2013

18 October

Roberta Rabellotti (Università di Pavia)

The Location Strategies of Emerging Countries Multinationals in the EU Regions

Abstract and bio [PDF] | Paper [PDF 307.98KB] | Presentation [PPTX 1.86MB]

Roberta Rabellotti, 18 October 2013

25 October

Matthew Lockwood (School of Geography, University of Exeter)

Varieties of capitalism and the politics of sustainable energy transitions

Abstract and bio [PDF] | Presentation [PPTX 1.05MB] | Background material [PDF]

Matthew Lockwood, 25 October 2013

1 November

Tilman Altenburg (German Development Institute)

Green innovations: The challenge of shaping technological trajectories through policy

Bio [PDF] | Background material 1 [PDF] | Background material 2 [PDF] | Presentation PPT [4.27MB]


Tilman Altenburg, 1 November 2013

8 November

David Wilkinson (EC Joint Research Centre)

JRC the in-house science service of the European Commission. New directions for Horizon 2020

Bio [PDF] | Presentation  [PPT 4.26MB

David Wilkinson, 8 November 2013

15 November

Sally Brooks (University of York)

Investing in Food security? Philanthrocapitalism, biotechnology and development 

Abstract and bio [PDF] | Background material | Paper [PDF 369.00KB] | Presentation [PDF 4.50MB]

Sally Brooks, 15 November 2013

22 November

Adam Eyre-Walker (University of Sussex)

The assessment of science: the relative merits of subjective post-publication review, the number of citations and the impact factor

Abstract and bio [PDF 7.51KB] | Presentation [PDF] | Background Mate

Adam Eyre-Walker, 22 November 2013

29 November 

Kornelia Konrad (University of Twente)

Governing Fuel Cell Innovation in a Dynamic Network of Expectations 

Abstract and bio [PDF 217.21KB] | Paper [PDF] Background material | Presentati

Kornelia Konrad, 29 November 2013

6 December  Maureen Mackintosh (Open University)

Falling out of the moving window? Interim findings from field research on industrial supplies to the Tanzanian health sector

Abstract and bio [PDF 146.54KB]

Maureen Mackintosh, 6 December 2013

Summer term 2013
14 June Brighton Fuse Team (CENTRIM/SPRU)

Right Here, Right Now: Fusion, innovation and growth in Brighton's Creative-Digital-IT cluster

SPRU Friday seminar, 14 June 2013

7 June Erik Millstone (SPRU)

The aspartame saga: disentangling the science, the economics and the politics

Please note: access to the following document is restricted and requires login with your Sussex username and password.

SPRU Friday seminar, 7 June 2013

31 May John Abraham
King's College London

The Mis-Direction of Pharmaceutical Regulation, Innovation, and Public Health

SPRU Friday seminar, 31 May 2013

24 May Ralph Schroeder (University of Oxford)

Big Data and the Uses and Disadvantages of Scientificity for Social Research

SPRU Friday seminar, 24 May 2013

10 May David Weir and Pierpaolo Andriani (University Campus Suffolk and Euromed School of Management)

Complex System Collapse, Creative Destruction and Exaptive response: British Aviation in the 1930

3 May Caroline Chapain (University of Birmingham)

Innovation in the Creative Industries: the case of the film industry in Soho, London

SPRU Friday seminar, 3 May 2013

26 April Martin Binder (SPRU)

Beware of (behavioural) economists bearing advice! Why Libertarian Paternalism is a dangerous policy tool

SPRU Friday seminar, 26 April 2013

19 April Massimo Riccaboni (IMT)

Networks of innovators within and across borders. Evidence from patent data

SPRU Friday seminar, 19 April 2013

12 April Lionel Nesta and Francesco Vona (OFCE-Sciences Po)

Environmental Policies, Product Market Regulation and Innovation in Renewable Energy

SPRU Friday seminar, 12 April 2013

5 April Paul Nightingale (SPRU)

Science Policy for 'Very Difficult Problems'

SPRU Friday seminar, 5 April 2013

Spring term 2013
22 March
Freeman Centre G24/25
Andy Stirling (SPRU)

The Direction of Progress? Old refrains, topical chimes, new riffs…

Further background:

SPRU Friday seminar, 22 March 2013

15 March
Jubilee 144
Jeremy Frey (University of Southampton)

Science Ajar: How e-Science can help (More) Open Science

Further background:

SPRU Friday seminar, 15 March 2013

8 March
Freeman Centre G24/25
Michael Keenan (OECD)

The OECD-World Bank Innovation Policy Platform: (Re-)Framing Policy Problems and Solutions

SPRU Friday seminar, 8 March 2013

1 March
Jubilee 144
Stuart Hogarth (King's College London)

Molecular monopolies: the corporatisation and commodification of cervical cancer screening innovation

SPRU Friday seminar, 1 March 2013

22 February
Freeman Centre G24/25
Cédric Gossart (Institut Mines-Telecom)

Patterns of Innovation in Green ICT: A Patent-Based Analysis

SPRU Friday seminar, 22 February 2013

15 February
Jubilee 144
Kevin Anderson (University of Manchester)

Real clothes for the Emperor: Facing the challenges of climate change

SPRU Friday Seminar, 15 February 2013

8 February
Freeman Centre G24/25
Harro Van Lente (Department of Innovation and Envrinonmental Sciences, Utrecht University)

Trajectories and expectations: variation and selection of technological promises

SPRU Friday seminar, 8 February 2013

1 February
Jubilee 144
Susan Hill (LSE)

Combining versus transforming knowledge? A comparison of the novelty and volume of ideas in corporate idea generation


SPRU Friday seminar, 1 February 2013


25 January
Freeman Centre G24/25
Michael Hopkins and Josh Siepel (SPRU)

Just how difficult can it be counting up R&D funding for emerging technologies? (and is tech mining with proxy measures any better?)

Please note: access to the following document is restricted and requires login with your Sussex username and password.

SPRU Friday seminar, 25 January 2013

18 January
Jubilee 144
Fulvio Castellacci (Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI))

Business Groups, Innovation and Institutional Voids in Latin America

SPRU Friday seminar, 18 January 2013

Autumn term 2012
Date/venue SpeakerSeminar Title

14 December

Jubilee 144

Dr Erik Arnold
Technopolis, Brighton

Second evaluation of RCN: evolving governance for a combined research and innovation funding agency

SPRU Friday seminar, 14 December 2012

7 December

Freeman Centre G24/25

Prof Kevin Anderson
University of Manchester

Please note: this seminar was cancelled due to illness; details of a rescheduled date will follow in due course. 

Real clothes for the Emperor: Facing the challenges of climate change

30 November

Jubilee 144

Prof David Edgerton
Imperial College - Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine

England and the aeroplane revisited: reflections on the history of British science and technology policies in the twentieth century

SPRU Friday seminar, 30 November 2012

23 November

Freeman Centre G24/25

Mike Porteous

Opening the black box of policy-making


SPRU Friday seminar, 23 November 2012


16 November

Jubilee 144

Prof Per Mickwitz
Finnish Environment Institute

Greening the economy: the case of Finnish energy

Please note: access to the following document is restricted and requires login with your Sussex username and password.

SPRU Friday seminar, 16 November 2012

9 November

Freeman Centre G24/25

Prof Michael Rowlinson
School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London

Accounting for research quality: research audits and journal rankings

Please note: access to the documents below is restricted and requires login with your Sussex username and password.

SPRU Friday seminar, 9 November 2012

2 November

Jubilee 144

Dr Simcha Jong
University College London - Department of Management Science and Innovation

When publications lead to products: the open science conundrum in new product development

SPRU Friday seminar, 2 November 2012

26 October

Freeman Centre G24/25

Sir Geoffrey Owen
London School of Economics and Political Science - Department of Management

Innovation in man-made fibres: corporate strategy and national institutions

Please note: LSE Companies Act Disclaimer

SPRU Friday seminar, 26 October 2012

19 October

Jubilee 144

Prof Sandro Montresor
Department of Economics, University of Bologna & JRC-IPTS, European Commission

The additionality of innovation policy: dimensions, levels, and results

SPRU Friday seminar, 19 October 2012

12 October

Freeman Centre G24/25

Dr Alex Coad

Two’s company: directional diversity and performance of entrepreneurial pairs

SPRU Friday seminar, 12 October 2012

5 October

Jubilee 144

Dr Rob Doubleday
Department of Geography, University of Cambridge

Prof James Wilsdon

Hail to the chief: future directions for scientific advice in Whitehall

Summer term 2012
DateSpeakerSeminar Title
22 June

Dr Tim Brady and Liz Lee-Kelly

Business as unusual: coping with the 'wicked' problem of planning transport needs for the 2012 Olympics

15 June

Dr Luciana D'Adderio
University of Edinburgh

Performing Modularity: Competing Rules, Materiality And The Diffusion Of Organisational Theories

8 June

Prof Mari Sako and Dr Panos Desyllas
University of Oxford

Profiting from Business Model Innovation: Evidence from Pay-as-You-Drive Auto Insurance

1 June

Professor Aldo Geuna
University of Torino, Italy – Department of Economics

Researchers’ mobility and its impact on scientific productivity

25 May

Dr Donald Hislop
University of Loughborough – School of Business and Economics

The Process of Individual Unlearning
among Managers in the UK National Health Service

18 May

Dr Andrea Mina
University of Cambridge – Centre for Business Research & UK-IRC

The demand and supply of finance for innovation

11 May

Associate Professor Mercedes Teruel
Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain

A life cycle analysis of innovation and firm growth

4 May

Dr Keith Smith
Imperial College London - Business School


27 April

Professor Ben Martin
University of Sussex - SPRU

20 Challenges for Innovation Studies

20 April

Distinguished Professor John Urry
Lancaster University – Department of Sociology

Climate Change and Society

Spring term 2012
DateSpeakerSeminar Title
16 March Dr Miles Parker

On tap or on top? The evolving role of expertise in government policy making

(Abstract and bio)

9 March Dr Roberto Fontana
University of Pavia

LANlords! Heritage and market dominance in the Local Area Networking industry

( Abstract and bio)
2 March Dr Maria Savona

Agglomeration econmies, forward linkages and regional specialisation in business services in the EU

(Abstract and bio)/p>

24 February Professor William Walker
University of St Andrews

Nuclear technology and international order: an evolutionary perspective

(Abstract and bio)

17 February Professor Arnulf Grubler

Portfolio Biases in Energy Technology Innovation Systems

(Abstract and bio)

10 February Professor Peter Pearson
Cardiff University

Past Energy Transitions, General Purpose Technologies and the Low Carbon ‘Revolution’

(Abstract and bio)

3 February

Professor Paul Wouters
Leiden University

Monitoring knowledge flows, new performance indicators, and evaluation cultures in 21st century science, technology and society

(Abstract and bio)

27 January Professor Marcela Miozzo
Manchester Business School

Cross-border acquisitions of science-based firms: their effect on innovation in the acquired firm and the local science and technology system

(Abstract and bio)

20 January Professor Slavo Radosevic
University College London

Entrepreneurial Propensity of Innovation Systems

(Abstract and paper)

13 January

Professor Tom Astebro
HEC Paris

Business Partners, Financing and the Commercialisation of Inventions

(Abstract and bio)

Autumn term 2011
DateSpeakerSeminar Title
9 December Prof Mariana Mazzucato The Entrepreneurial State (Abstract and bio)
2 December Prof Mari Sako, Oxford University TBA
25 November Andrew Simms (Bio)
18 November Prof Guido Buenstorf, University of Kassel System! What System? Tracing the Systemic Character of Innovation in the German Laser Industry, 1960-2005 (Abstract and bio)
11 November Prof Ammon Salter, Imperial College Going Underground: Bootlegging and Individual Innovative Performance (Abstract and bio)
4 November Dr Nick Marshall, CENTRIM Tunnel vision? The history of the Thames Tunnel and narratives of technology (Abstract and bio)
28 October Dr Marco Paiola, University of Padova Relational innovation in Knowledge Intensive Business Services (Abstract and bio)
21 October Prof Fred Steward, Policy Studies Institute at the University of Westminter Learning to love the network model of innovation (Abstract and bio)
14 October Dr Saurabh Arora, Eindhoven University The work of governing: implementation of standards, contracts and certification in a global commodity chain (Abstract and bio)
7 October Prof Jim Skea, UKERC The Role of the UK Committee on Climate Change: The story so far and future challenges (Abstract and bio)
Spring term 2011
DateSpeakerSeminar Title
18 March Deborah Dougherty, Rutgers University Innovation on the 21st Century
4 March Loet Leydesdorff  
25 February Dean Alfred Lloyd, Science and Engineering, University of Brighton  

18 February

Jon Sussex and Jorge Mestre-Ferrandiz, Office of Health Economics Public/private medical research spillovers
11 February Alfred Kleinchnecht, TU Delft  
4 February Andrew Torrance, School of Law, University of Kansas The patent game: Experiments in the cathedral of law
28 January Aashish Velkar, Department of Business and Management, Sussex University Establishing technological standards through strategic alliances (Abstract)
21 January Jeroen de Jong, Rotterdam School of Management (RSM) Erasmus University Rotterdam The openness of user and producer information: A study of Dutch high-tech SMEs (Abstract)
Autumn term 2010
DateSpeakerSeminar Title

11 December

Roger Strange
BMEc, Business and Management

The outsourcing of primary activities: Theoretical analysis and propositions
(Abstract, Paper)

4 December

Frank Geels

Towards a neo-evolutionary framework of industry dynamics and innovation: Enriching evolutionary economics with insights from institutional theory, organisation theory, economic sociology and strategic management
(Abstract & Biography,  Paper)

27 November

David Dyker

Business culture and political culture in Russia
(Abstract, CV)

20 November

Andy Stirling and Adrian Ely

Innovation, Sustainability, Development: A new manifesto
(Abstract, manifesto website)

13 November

Gabriela Dutrenit
and Alex Vera Cruz
Visiting Fellow, CENTRIM

How suitable are the OECD's recommendations for fostering firms' innovation in developing countries? A discussionof the innovation policy framework in the light of the Mexican case
(Abstract & Biographies)

6 November

Alasdair Reed
Director TECHNOPOLIS, Brussels

Stages of economic development, innovation systems and differentiated approaches to innovation policy: evidence from the European TrendChart on Innovation
(Abstract & Biography)

30 October

Markus Reitzig
London Business School

Gaining it by giving it away: How firms capture value from open source software by waiving their intellectual property rights
(Abstract & Biography)

23 October

Andrea Fillipetti and Daniele Archibugi
University of London, Birkbeck College

Disentangling the impact of the economic downturn on firms' innovation behaviour: a micro level analysis
(Abstract, CV )

16 October

Yumiko Okamoto
Donshisha University, Kyoto

A comparative study of biotechnology companies in Sweden and Denmark: Why do they perform differently?
(Abstract & Biography)

9 October 

Howard Rush
Professor, Director of CENTRIM 

Crime on-line: Cybercrime and illegal innovation
(Abstract & Biography)

Spring term 2010
DateSpeakerSeminar Title

19 March

Gordon Murray
Exeter University

Doing Road Works on the Boulevard of Broken Dreams: reflections of an academic navvy

12 March

Raphie Kaplinsky
Open University

What happens in Global value chains when the market shifts from north to south?

5 March

Steve Flowers

Measuring User Innovation in the UK

26 February

Jonathan Linton
Telfer School of
University of Ottowa



19 February



12 February

Andy Davies and
Lars Frederiksen
Imperial College

Design Capabilities: Learning How to Design a City which is Zero Carbon and in China

5 February

Mary Kaldor
Centre for the
Study of Global
Governance, LSE

Human Security

29 January

Steve Sorrell
Sussex Energy Group

Peak Oil: A review of the evidence
(Abstract and biography)

22 January

Luc Soete
Professor of
Economic Relations,
Director of UNU-MERIT,

European Research Policy at a crossroad
(Abstract,  Biography)

15 January

David Gann
Imperial College

Innovation Studies: past, present and future
Abstract & Bio