Microsoft Word bal paper with addendum doc

I.8 Innovation and learning 

It is obvious that different authors mean different things when referring to a national system of 

innovation. Some major differences have to do with the focus of the analysis and with how broad 

the definition is in relation to institutions and markets. 

Authors from the US having a background in studying science and technology policy, tend to focus 

the analysis on ‘the innovation system in the narrow sense’. They regard the NSI-concept as a 

follow-up and broadening of earlier analyses of national science systems and national technology 

policies (see for instance the definition given in Mowery and Oxley 1995, p.80). The focus is upon 

the systemic relationships between R&D-efforts in firms, S&T-organizations, including 

universities, and public policy. The analysis may include markets for knowledge – intellectual 

property rights - and the venture-capital aspects of financial markets but seldom the broader set of 

institutions shaping competence building in the economy such as education of ordinary workers, 

industrial relations and labour market dynamics. The interaction and relationships at the centre of 

the analysis is the one between knowledge institutions and firms.  

The Freeman- and the 'Aalborg-version' of the national innovation system-approach (Freeman 1987; 

Lundvall 1985; Lundvall 1992) aims at understanding ‘the innovation system in the broad sense’. 

First the definition of ‘innovation’ is broader. Innovation is defined as a continuous cumulative 

process involving not only radical and incremental innovation but also the diffusion, absorption and 

use of innovation. Second there are other major sources of innovation than science. Innovation is 

seen as reflecting interactive learning taking place in connection with on-going activities in 

production and sales. Therefore the analysis takes its starting point in the process of production and 

the process of product development assuming, for instance, that the interaction with users is 

fundamental for product innovation. 

To a certain degree, these differences in focus reflect the national origin of the analysts. In small 

countries such as Denmark, as in developing countries – a major concern of Freeman - it is obvious 

that the competence base most critical for innovation in the economy as a whole is not scientific 

knowledge. Incremental innovation, ‘absorptive capacity’ and economic performance will typically 

reflect the skills and motivation of employees as well as inter- and intra-organisational relationships 

and characteristics. Science-based sectors may be rapidly growing but their shares of total 

employment and exports remain relatively small. 

In the US, aggregate economic growth is more directly connected with the expansion of science-

based sectors. In these sectors big US-firms have an international lead and they introduce radical 

innovation in areas where the interaction with science is crucial for success. Even so, it may be 

argued that the broader approach could be useful also in the US since some of the weaknesses of the 

US-system may reflect the limited mobilization of employees in processes of technical and 

organizational change and a general weakness when it comes to establish co-operation between 

people and firms. This was actually one of the major conclusions from the ‘Made in America’ MIT-

study (Dertoutzos et al 1989). 

---

 

13

Another factor explaining the difference may be that the ambition of the analysis is different. When 

the analysis addresses STI-policy issues the need for a broader perspective is less obvious than 

when it addresses issues having to do with economic performance in terms of economic growth and 

international competitiveness.