Skip to content

JoIE Blog

The official blog of the Journal of Institutional Economics

Menu
  • Home
  • Latest Posts
  • Editor-in-chief page
  • About this journal
    • Aims
    • Citation Impact
    • Notes for Contributors
    • Complaints and Appeals Procedures
    • Editors
    • International Advisory Board
    • Journal Issues
    • Elinor Ostrom Prize
    • Supplementary Material
    • Conflict of Interest Policy
  • Contact
Menu

Inclusive national innovation systems: rethinking institutions in the light of inclusion imperatives

Posted on April 13, 2025April 13, 2025 by Nikhilesh Sinha

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. 

Share this…
  • Google
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Whatsapp
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Print

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Related Links

Cambridge University Press

Journal of Institutional Economics homepage

WINIR

Search the site

Find posts by keywords

Africa Article summary CHina and the West common-pool resource Comparative Development Competition convergence COVID-19 Cultural dimensions Cultural Persistence Culture Democracy discrimination Economic freedom Elinor Ostrom Prize Entreprensurship exploration-exploitation dilemma Financial Institutions formal institutions game theory Hofstede informal institutions informal rules institutional economics institutions money Ostrom Political institutions polycentric governance Polycentricity pornography property rights public goods replication study rule of law Rule of Law Index Social Innovation sociology of economics Symposium on Corporations transaction costs trust Uncategorized United States USSR Violence

Categories

  • Article Summary (68)
  • Blog Editor Post (4)
  • Uncategorized (2)

Archives

  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • February 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • July 2024
  • April 2024
  • December 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • February 2023
  • September 2022
  • June 2022
  • March 2022
  • November 2021
  • September 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • October 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
RSS Error: A feed could not be found at `https://www.cambridge.org/core/rss/product/id/329C6FAD974C7E0D4DE0845833342A29`; the status code is `403` and content-type is `text/html; charset=UTF-8`
RSS Error: WP HTTP Error: A valid URL was not provided.
RSS Error: WP HTTP Error: A valid URL was not provided.
RSS Error: WP HTTP Error: A valid URL was not provided.
RSS Error: WP HTTP Error: A valid URL was not provided.
©2025 JoIE Blog | Built using WordPress and Responsive Blogily theme by Superb