Policies for Science, Technology, and Innovation: A Case Study of Transitional China

Literature Review

The field of science policy and innovation studies began in the 1950s (Martin, 2012). The earliest research in this field covering diverse disciplines including economics (Solow, 1954), sociology (Coleman et al., 1957; 1966); management (Woodward, 1958); organizational studies (Burns and Stalker, 1961); political science (Walker, 1969), and psychology (Pelz and Andrews, 1966). Since the 1970s and 1980s, there was a substantial surge in the pond dedicated to the study of the STI system itself, especially in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Although plenty of research has been done in the innovation field, its policy studies are at a crossroads (Flanagan and Uyarra, 2016; Morlacchi and Martin, 2009). STI policy research can be defined as the application of social science to the study of policy for STI (Morlacchi and Martin, 2009). Over the years, STI researchers have developed several methodological tools for empirical research. Some scholars are focusing on the definition and measurement of the STI system, as it is continuously and rapidly evolving. For instance, Wu (2007; 2010) reviewed and compared the definitions of science policy, technology policy and innovation policy. Therefore, Freeman and Soete (2009) examined the commonly used indicators to measure STI. They caution that scholars must update these indicators, because some of them are significant in the last century, and may not be so relevant today. The selection of indicators may even be misleading. Moreover, Fan et al. (2012) reviewed the literature on the definitions, classifications, evolutions, evaluations of innovation policies in China and other countries, and concluded that till 2012 there was lack of research (especially empirical research) on the quality of innovation policy and its effect on performance of such policy, the coordination mechanisms of innovation policies, and simulation studies of innovation policies.