Summary of JOIE article (25 February 2025) by Vanessa Casadella and Sofiane Tahi, LEFMI Lab., Picardie Jules Verne University, Amiens, France. The full article is available on the JOIE website.
Since the 1990s, national innovation systems (NIS) have been the focus of a large body of literature highlighting the institutional performance of economies and the promotion of economic development. Institutions and organisations are fundamentally embedded in the dynamics of NIS. Innovation is shaped by the institutional structure of the economy. The latter is represented by a model of constraints and incentives that shape and channel the behaviour of actors. Institutions structure the interactions and decisions of economic agents, just as they constitute the processes of variety creation and selection linked to technical change.
Inclusion in systemic innovation activities is an emerging field of research. However, the definition of inclusion within innovative activities remains unclear and associated with many forms and characteristics depending on the context visited. Although there are many interpretations of the term ‘inclusive’ in the literature on economic development and the concept is constantly evolving, the three main areas of intervention that cut across the different interpretations are the fight against inequality, the inclusion of the excluded in the implementation of socio-economic policy and the reduction of gaps in human capabilities, which are largely the determinants of human life chances. But a comparison of the different definitions of inclusion reveals a kind of conceptual gap marked by porous boundaries on who are the groups to be included (the actors), where to include them (the spaces, institutions and organisations) and how (mechanisms), in these innovation systems.
Our work highlights the conceptual gap that exists around the notion of inclusive innovation by characterising three forms of inclusion in relation to innovation activities.
Based on Heeks’ scale of inclusion, Carayannis’ helixes and Acemoglu’s inclusive institutions, we have developed a typology of three distinct framings which enable us to identify three different levels associated with specific institutional mechanisms and forms of inclusion. This typology makes it possible to identify appropriate innovation policies, according to the characterisation of inclusive innovation (weak, medium and strong). It also helps to clarify the inclusive nature of innovation in NIS approaches.
In the first “democratic path innovation” framing, inclusion is weak and consists of considering systemic innovation in a societal and macroeconomic framing with democratic stability. Systemic innovation is top-down. Public policies guarantee a level of political stability that enables actors to carry out their innovation activities within a favourable institutional framing. Inclusion is linked to the nature of inclusive political institutions, i.e. democracy. In framing 1, public policy tools are based on respect for the democratic framing, public governance and public support for NIS in the ‘strict’ sense of the term: i.e. around science and technology.
In the second “multi-actor and protean innovation” framing, we find civil society and its participation in the production and dissemination of knowledge. This form of inclusion is bottom-up, with a multi-stakeholder aspect. Inclusive initiatives are characterised when poor and marginalised communities can benefit from innovations or co-construct innovation processes. Innovation in conditions of scarcity is driven by informal institutions combining a shortage of resources and knowledge capacities. In framing 2, innovation policies are defended by support for other forms of policy: social, educational or environmental. Social policies combat social exclusion.
The last framing is the most comprehensive, called “societal and transformative innovation“. Strong inclusion is societal inclusion. It represents the most accomplished form of inclusive institutions: through the consideration it gives to its actors, its multi-stakeholder approach, but also because it is constructed in such a way as to promote all forms of knowledge in the economy, within different given contexts. Innovation is transformative: it changes the lives of all individuals and is supported by an environment characterised by institutional drivers within given territories. In this context, a structural or directional change is advocated. It is therefore a whole new sustainability paradigm that needs to be promoted around transformative and mission-oriented innovation policies.
These three framings make it easier to interpret inclusion in systemic innovation activities. However, there is no better framing to promote, other than to consider the legitimacy of inclusion, which, in the last framing, is more successful than the other two since it includes a new directionality, structural and societal change. Inclusive institutions relating to these NIS need to be given greater consideration by public actors, who can support them through multiple initiatives, via multi-level policies and governance. The idea is to be able to implement inclusive innovation policies according to the forms of inclusive innovation. Finally, the aim is to make the institutions involved in systemic dynamics function as real bridges between individuals, which still represents real challenges in certain contexts, such as in developing economies.