Public Administration Perspective

From Law to Innovation: Evaluation of the Instruments of the Knowledge-Based Production Leap Act in Iran

Document Type : Research Article (with quantitative approaches)

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of Innovation & Technology Group, Faculty of Governance, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Business Management and Marketing Group, Faculty of Islamic Studies and Management, Imam Sadiq University (AS), Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor of Governance and Public Administration Group, Faculty of Islamic Studies & Management, Imam Sadegh University (AS), Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Abstract 
Purpose: This study concentrates on innovation policy instruments embedded in the Knowledge-Based Production Leap Act. This law was enacted to strengthen innovation in knowledge-based companies and provide appropriate support infrastructures in Iran. It employs a combination of innovation policy instruments to achieve its objectives. The primary objective of this research is to identify the impact of these legal instruments on the innovative performance of knowledge-based companies and to assess the success or failure of these instruments in achieving the set goals. A total of 15 articles of the law (comprising 29 parts include innovation policy instruments) directly related to innovative and knowledge-based companies have been evaluated in this study.
Methodology: This research was conducted using a quantitative method, comprising a main phase of data collection and analysis. Data were initially collected through a Likert-scale questionnaire distributed to 114 knowledge-based companies across various industrial sectors. In the quantitative analysis phase, structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to examine the relationship between different articles of the Knowledge-Based Production Leap Act and the performance of knowledge-based companies. Additionally, Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) was used to identify policy priorities and determine the strengths and weaknesses of various policy instruments.
Findings: The findings reveal that certain legal provisions, particularly Articles 1, 4 and 11, which focus on financial support and the development of research and development infrastructure, have played a significant role in enhancing the innovative performance of knowledge-based companies. These supports include financial facilities, subsidies, the improvement of technological infrastructures, and the provision of resources for development research. Conversely, legal provisions related to customs tariff legal representative, such as Articles 3, 12 and 15, were identified as weaker instruments and require further revision and adaptation to meet the real needs of companies. Moreover, the findings indicate that a lack of coordination among certain policy instruments has reduced their overall effectiveness.
Limitations and Implications: One of the limitations of this study is its focus on data collected from knowledge-based companies in Iran, which may not be fully generalizable to other countries. Additionally, the study is centered on the short-term impacts of the implementation of the law, and further research is needed to analyze its long-term effects. Furthermore, the limited access to accurate quantitative data on the long-term performance of companies may not fully capture the detailed and lasting impacts of these policies.
Practical Implications: The results suggest that policymakers should consider revising non-financial instruments such as consultancy and training, ensuring that these instruments are fully aligned with the specific needs of industries and knowledge-based companies. Additionally, it is recommended that greater interaction between the government and the private sector be established so that regular feedback from companies can be communicated to the government and the Islamic Consultative Assembly for policy optimization. Moreover, implementing a continuous evaluation system to monitor the performance of policy instruments and the enforcement of the law could facilitate necessary reforms. Finally, special attention to the financial and infrastructural needs of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the innovation sector remains crucial.
Originality: This research introduces innovation in several aspects. First, it focuses on evaluating the performance of a significant law related to innovation policy in Iran. The findings of this study have practical implications for improving and enhancing the law. The second innovative aspect lies in the the combination of two methods — structural equation modeling (SEM) and Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) — in evaluating innovation policies is presented as an analytical methodology in innovation studies. This approach allows for a more comprehensive analysis of the multifaceted impacts of policy instruments and their interactions.
 
Article Type: Research Article 

Keywords

  1. Acciai, C. (2021). The politics of research and innovation: Understanding instrument choices in complex governance environments – the case of France and Italy. Research Policy, 50(9), 104254. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2021.104254
  2. Arnold, E. (2004). Evaluating research and innovation policy: a systems world needs systems evaluations. Research Evaluation, 13(1), 3–17. doi:10.3152/14715440478177650
  3. Azar, A., Jalali, R., & Khosravani, F. (2013). Soft operational research, Industrial management institute. (In Persian)
  4. Boekholt, P. (2010). The evolution of innovation paradigms and their influence on research, technological development and innovation policy instruments. In The theory and practice of innovation policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  5. Boon, W.P., & Edler, J. (2018). Demand, challenges, and innovation. Making sense of new trends in innovation policy. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 435 - 447, https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy014
  6. Borrás, S., & Edquist, C. (2013). The choice of innovation policy instruments. Technological forecasting and social change, 80(8), 1513-1522.
  7. Borrás, S., & Edquist, C. (2019). Holistic innovation policy: theoretical foundations, policy problems, and instrument choices. Oxford University Press.
  8. Borrás, S., & Schwaag Serger, S. (2022). The design of transformative research and innovation policy instruments for grand challenges: The policy-nesting perspective. Science and Public Policy, 49(5), 659-672.
  9. Chaminade, C., & Edquist, C. (2006). From theory to practice: the use of the systems of innovation approach in innovation policy. Innovation, Science, and Institutional Change A Research Handbook, Oxford University, 141-163. DOI:10.1093/oso/9780199299195.003.0008
  10. Crespi, G., Figal Garone, L., Maffioli, A., & Stein, E. (2020). Public support to R&D, productivity, and spillover effects: Firm-level evidence from Chile. World Development, 130, 104948. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.10494
  11. Creswell, J.W., & Clark, V.P. (2011). Mixed methods research.
  12. Cunningham, P., Edler, J., Flanagan, K., & Laredo, P. (2013). Innovation policy mix and instrument interaction: a review. Compendium of evidence on the effectiveness of innovation policy intervention project. Manchester, UK: Manchester Institute for Innovation Research, University of Manchester.
  13. Cunningham, P., Edler, J., Flanagan, K., & Larédo, P. (2016). The innovation policy mix. Handbook of innovation policy impact, 505-542.
  14. Edler, J., & Boon, W.P. (2018). The next generation of innovation policy: Directionality and the role of demand-oriented instruments’ - Introduction to the special section. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 433 - 434, doi: /10.1093/scipol/scy026
  15. Edler, J., Cunningham, P., & Gök, A. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of innovation policy impact. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  16. Edler, J., & Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: what, why, and how. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 2–23. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26363353
  17. Flanagan, K., & Uyarra, E. (2016). Four dangers in innovation policy studies–and how to avoid them. Industry and Innovation, 23(2), 177-188.
  18. Flor, María Luisa, José Luis Blasco Díaz, and María Lidón Lara Ortiz. (2020). Innovation Policy Instruments through the Lens of Open Innovation. An Analysis in the Spanish Context. Journal of Evolutionary Studies in Business, 5 (1), 52-80. https://doi.org/10.1344/jesb2020.1.j068.
  19. Garofoli, G., & Musyck, B. (2003). Innovation policies for SMEs: An overview of policy instruments. In Regional innovation policy for small-medium enterprises (pp. 119-138). Edward Elgar Publishing.
  20. George, G., & Prabhu, G. N. (2003). Developmental financial institutions as technology policy instruments: implications for innovation and entrepreneurship in emerging economies. Research Policy, 32(1), 89–108. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00002-1
  21. Georghiou, L., Edler, J., Uyarra, E., & Yeow, J. (2014). Policy instruments for public procurement of innovation: Choice, design and assessment. Technological forecasting and social change, 86, 1-12.
  22. Ghazinoori, S., Kazemi, H., Roshani, S., & Radaei, N. (2015). A Review on Policy Objectives and Instruments in Iran’s S&T Documents. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 8(3), 71-86. (In Persian).
  23. Gustafsson, A., Tingvall, P.G. & Halvarsson, D. (2020). Subsidy Entrepreneurs: an Inquiry into Firms Seeking Public Grants. Journal of Industry, Competition & Trade, 20, 439 – 478, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-019-00317-0
  24. Halilem, N., Bertrand, C., Cloutier, J.S., Landry, R. and Amara, N. (2012). The knowledge value chain as an SME innovation policy instrument framework: an analytical exploration of SMEs public innovation support in OECD countries, J. Technology Management, 58, pp.236 - 260.
  25. Hottenrott, H., & Richstein, R. (2020). Start-up subsidies: Does the policy instrument matter?. Research Policy, 49(1), 103888. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.103
  26. Howoldt, D. (2024). Characterising innovation policy mixes in innovation systems, Research Policy, 53 (2), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104902.
  27. Howoldt, D., & Borrás, S. (2022). Innovation policy instruments for grand challenges: targeting constellations of diverse R&I actors?. Industry and Innovation, 30(8), 985 - 1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2022.2112397
  28. Huergo, E., & Moreno, L. (2017). Subsidies or loans? Evaluating the impact of R&D support programmes. Research Policy, 46(7), 1198–1214. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.05.
  29. Johansson, B., Karlsson, C., & Backman, M. (2007). Innovation policy instruments. CISIS, KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
  30. Larrue, P. (2021). The design and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policies: A new systemic policy approach to address societal challenges. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 100, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3f6c76a4-en.
  31. Meissner, D., & Kergroach, S. (2021). Innovation policy mix: mapping and measurement. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(1), 197-222. Doi:10.1007/s10961-019-09767-4 
  32. Nasiri, H., & Radaei, N. (2019). Classification and Choice of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Instruments. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 11(2), 495-511. (In Persian).
  33. Petrin, T., Radicic, D. (2023). Instrument policy mix and firm size: is there complementarity between R&D subsidies and R&D tax credits?. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48, 181– 215, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09908-8
  34. Smits, R., & Kuhlmann, S. (2004). The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy.International journal of foresight and innovation policy, 1(1-2), 4-32. doi:10.1504/ijfip.2004.004621
  35. Warnke, P., & Heimeriks, G. (2008). Technology foresight as innovation policy instrument: learning from science and technology studies. In Future-oriented technology analysis: Strategic intelligence for an innovative economy.(pp. 71-87). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  36. Wesseling, J.H., & Edquist, C. (2018). Public procurement for innovation to help meet societal challenges: a review and case study. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 493 - 502, Doi:10.1093/scipol/scy013
  37. Zuniga, P. (2024). Innovation policy effectiveness in emerging countries: Lessons from impact evaluation studies. World bamk Public Documents.
Public Administration Perspective
Volume 15, Issue 4 - Serial Number 60
January 2025
Pages 31-54