2017 | 53 | 2(212) | 185-206
Article title

Problemy koncepcji polityki innowacyjnej jako „przedsiębiorczego państwa”

Title variants
Problems with the conception of innovation policy as “entrepreneurial state”
Languages of publication
Artykuł prezentuje koncepcję aktywnej polityki innowacyjnej „przedsiębiorczego państwa” w ujęciu M. Mazzucato. Jego interwencje mają wykraczać poza uzasadnienie wynikające z porażek rynkowych innowacji, sformułowane przez K. Arrowa. Przykład amerykańskiej agencji DARPA, na której wzoruje się Mazzucato, uzasadnia jednak inną formę aktywnej interwencji państwa, jaką jest zdecentralizowane „zarządzanie siecią”. Przegląd problemów koncepcji „przedsiębiorczego państwa” wskazuje na problematyczność wynikających z niej rekomendacji, zwł. w postaci „ogniwa ryzyko-nagroda”.
The paper discusses M. Mazzucato’s conception of “entrepreneurial state” as an active innovation policy. It is supposed to transgress the justification of state intervention based on innovation market failures (K. Arrow). Her benchmark case study of DARPA substantiates a different form of active state innovation policy, i.e. “embedded network governance”. The overview of problems of “the entrepreneurial state” undermines the entailed recommendations, esp. based on “risk-reward nexus”.
Physical description
  • Wydział Filozofii, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
  • Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B., Lehmann, E.E., Licht, G., 2016, National Systems of Innovation, „The Journal of Technology Transfer”, s. 1–12.
  • Arrow, K., 1962, Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention, w: Universities-National Bureau Committee for Economic Research, Committee on Economic Growth of the Social Science Research Council (red.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Princeton: Princeton University Press, s. 609–626.
  • Auerswald, P.E., Branscomb, L.M., 2003, Valleys of Death and Darwinian Seas: Financing the Invention to Innovation Transition in the United States, „The Journal of Technology Transfer” 28.3–4: 227–239.
  • Besley, T., Persson, T., 2011, Pillars of Prosperity: The Political Economics of Development Clusters, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Block, F.L., Keller, M.R., 2011, Where do Innovations Come From? Transformations in the U.S. Economy, 1970-2006 (No. 35), Oslo: The other canon foundation.
  • Bonvillian, W.B., 2014, The New Model Innovation Agencies: An Overview, „Science and Public Policy” 41.4: 425–437.
  • Bravo-Ortega, C., García Marín, Á., 2011, R&D and Productivity: A Two Way Avenue?, „World Development” 39.7: 1090–1107.
  • Breznitz, D., 2007, Innovation and the State: Political Choice and Strategies for Growth in Israel, Taiwan, and Ireland, New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Breznitz, D., Ornston, D., 2013, The Revolutionary Power of Peripheral Agencies: Explaining Radical Policy Innovation in Finland and Israel, „Comparative Political Studies” 46.10: 1219–1245.
  • Brynjolfsson, E., Oh, J., 2012, The Attention Economy: Measuring the Value of Free Digital Services on the Internet.
  • Cantner, U., Pyka, A., 2001, Classifying Technology Policy from an Evolutionary Perspective, „Research Policy” 30.5: 759–775.
  • de Jong, S.P.L., Smit, J., van Drooge, L., 2016, Scientists’ Response to Societal Impact Policies: A Policy Paradox, „Science and Public Policy” 43.1: 102–114.
  • Dosi, G., Egidi, M., 1991, Substantive and Procedural Uncertainty: An Exploration of Economic Behaviours in Changing Environments, „Journal of Evolutionary Economics” 1.2: 145–168.
  • Edler, J., Georghiou, L., 2007, Public Procurement and innovation—Resurrecting the Demand Side, „Research Policy” 36.7: 949–963.
  • Elert, N., Henrekson, M., Wernberg, J., 2016, Two Sides to the Evasion: The Pirate Bay and the Interdependencies of Evasive Entrepreneurship, (D. Alexandre Padilla, red.) „Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy” 5.2: 176–200.
  • Eliasson, G., 2010, Private and Social Spillover Benefits from Advanced Procurement: Defining and Estimating the Spillover Multiplier, w: Advanced Public Procurement as Industrial Policy (Vol. 34), New York, NY: Springer New York, s. 215–232.
  • Evans, P.B., 1995, Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation, Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
  • Fine, B., Saraswati, J., Tavasci, D., International Initiative for Promoting Political Economy (red.), 2013, Beyond the Developmental State: Industrial Policy into the Twenty-First Century, London: Pluto Press.
  • Foray, D., Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R., 2012, Public R&D and Social Challenges: What Lessons from Mission R&D Programs?, „Research Policy” 41.10: 1697–1702.
  • Freeman, C., Soete, L., 1997, The Economics of Industrial Innovation, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
  • Fuchs, E.R.H., 2010, Rethinking the Role of the State in Technology Development: DARPA and the Case for Embedded Network Governance, „Research Policy” 39.9: 1133–1147.
  • Georghiou, L., Nightingale, P., Connell, D., Robertson, D., Bianco, T., Tomlinson, I., … Richards, A., Bridging The ‘valley of Death’: Improving the Commercialisation of Research, Science and Technology Committee (2012), London: House of COMMONS.
  • Gomułka, S., 1990, The Theory of Technological Change and Economic Growth, London: Routledge.
  • Griliches, Z., 1958, Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations, „Journal of Political Economy” 66.5: 419–431.
  • Griliches, Z., 1979, Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth, „The Bell Journal of Economics” 10.1: 92–116.
  • Griliches, Z., 1998, R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Haldane, A.G., Davies, R., 2011, The Short Long, Presented at the 29th Société Universitaire Européene de Recherches Financières Colloquium: New Paradigms in Money and Finance?, Brussels.
  • Hall, M.J., Layson, S.K., Link, A.N., 2014, The Returns to R&D: Division of Policy Research and Analysis at the National Science Foundation, „Science and Public Policy” 41.4: 458–463.
  • Hart, D.M., 2014, An Agent, Not a Mole: Assessing the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, „Science and Public Policy” 41.4: 411–418.
  • Haskel, J., 2009, The Innovation Index. Measuring the UK’s investment in innovation and its effects, NESTA.
  • Jones, R.A.L., 2013, The UK’s innovation defi cit and how to repair it (SPERI No. 6), Sheffield: University of Sheffield.
  • Jones, R.A.L., 2014, May 9, Why R&D Matters, „Soft Machines”,
  • Kawalec, P., 2015a, Ambivalued Innovation and Interactive Research Design, w: P. Kawalec, R. Wierzchosławski (red.), Social Responsibility and Science in Innovation Economy, Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, s. 335–352.
  • Kawalec, P., 2015b, Pluralizm metodologiczny w badaniach dyfuzji innowacji, w: M. Pawlak (red.), Nowe tendencje w zarządzaniu (Vol. VI), Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, s. 147–72.
  • Kawalec, P., 2016, W kierunku dojrzałości metodologicznej badań naukoznawczych, „Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa” 52.1(207): 33–44.
  • Keller, M.R., Block, F., 2013, Explaining the Transformation in the US Innovation System: The Impact of a Small Government Program, „Socio-Economic Review” 11.4: 629–656.
  • Keller, M.R., Negoita, M., 2013, Correcting Network Failures: The Evolution of US Innovation Policy in the Wind and Advanced Battery Industries, „Competition & Change” 17.4: 319–338.
  • Lazonick, W., Mazzucato, M., 2013, The Risk-Reward Nexus in the Innovation-Inequality Relationship: Who Takes the Risks? Who Gets the Rewards?, „Industrial and Corporate Change” 22.4: 1093–1128.
  • Link, A.N., 2014, Introduction to Special Section: A Retrospective Look at US Science and Technology Policy, „Science and Public Policy” 41.4: 409–410.
  • Lundvall, B.-Å., 2007, National Innovation Systems—Analytical Concept and Development Tool, „Industry & Innovation” 14.1: 95–119.
  • Lundvall, B.-Å., 1992, National Systems of Innovation: Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London: Anthem Press.
  • Martin, R., Sunley, P., 2003, Deconstructing Clusters: Chaotic Concept or Policy Panacea?, „Journal of Economic Geography” 3.1: 5–35.
  • Mazzucato, M., 2013, The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs Private Sector Myth, London: Anthem Press.
  • Mazzucato, M., Penna, C.C.R., 2016, Beyond Market Failures: The Market Creating and Shaping Roles of State Investment Banks, „Journal of Economic Policy Reform” 19.4: 305–326.
  • Mazzucato, M., Semieniuk, G., 2017, Public Financing of Innovation: New Questions, „Oxford Review of Economic Policy” 33.1: 24–48.
  • Mowery, D.C., 2010, Military R&D and Innovation, w: B.H. Hall, N. Rosenberg (red.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation (Vol. 2), Amsterdam: North Holland, s. 1219–1256.
  • Nathan, M., Overman, H., 2013, Agglomeration, Clusters, and Industrial Policy, „Oxford Review of Economic Policy” 29.2: 383–404.
  • Nelson, R.R., 1959, The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research, „Journal of Political Economy” 67.3: 297–306.
  • Nelson, R.R., 2016, Economic Development as an Evolutionary Process, w: E. Reinert, J. Ghosh, R. Kattel (red.), Handbook of Alternative Theories of Economic Development, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, s. 323–335.
  • Nordhaus, W.D., 2004, Schumpeterian Profits in the American Economy: Theory and Measurement (Working Paper No. 10433), National Bureau of Economic Research.
  • Okoń-Horodyńska, E., 1998, Narodowy System Innowacji w Polsce, Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uczelniane Akademii Ekonomicznej.
  • Perez, C., 2013, Unleashing a Golden Age after the Financial Collapse: Drawing Lessons from History, „Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions” 6: 9–23.
  • Perez, C., …, Kawalec, P. i in., 2016, Changing Gear in R&I: Green Growth for Jobs and Prosperity in the EU. Report of the European Commission Expert Group ‘R&I Policy Framework for Green Growth & Jobs’, Strasbourg: European Commission.
  • Potts, J., 2016, Innovation Policy in a Global Economy, „Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy” 5.3: 308–324.
  • Roll, M. (red.), 2014, The Politics of Public Sector Performance: Pockets of Effectiveness in Developing Countries, London ; New York: Routledge.
  • Schrank, A., Whitford, J., 2011, The Anatomy of Network Failure, “Sociological Theory” 29.3: 151–177.
  • Schumpeter, J., 1911, Teoria Rozwoju Gospodarczego, (J. Grzywicka, trans.), Warszawa: PWN.
  • Tassey, G., 2014, Innovation in Innovation Policy Management: The Experimental Technology Incentives Program and the Policy Experiment, „Science and Public Policy” 41.4: 419–424.
  • Turner, A., 2016, Between Debt and the Devil: Money, Credit, and Fixing Global Finance, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Wade, R.H., 2014, ‘Market versus State’ or ‘Market with State’: How to Impart Directional Thrust: Review Essay: ‘Market versus State’ or ‘Market with State’, „Development and Change” 45.4: 777–798.
  • Weresa, M.A. (red.), 2014, Innovation, Human Capital and Trade Competitiveness: How Are They Connected and Why Do They Matter? ; Comparing Countries in Europe, North America, and Asia, Cham: Springer.
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.