1、 外文翻译 原文 Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Material Source： Innovation Handbook. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Pages 599-631 Author： Jan, Mowery, David C. and Nelson, Richard R .to technology policy Technology policy refers to policies that focus on technologies and sectors. The era of
2、technology policy is one where especially science-based technologies such as nuclear power, space technology, computers, drugs and genetic engineering are seen as being at the very core of economic growth. These technologies get into focus for several reasons. On the one hand they stimulate imaginat
3、ion because they make it possible to do surprising things - they combine science with fiction. On the other hand they open up new commercial opportunities. They are characterized by a high rate of innovation and they address rapidly growing markets. Technology policy means different things for catch
4、ing up countries than it does for high-income countries and it might also mean different things for small and big countries. In big high-income countries the focus will be on establishing a capacity in producing the most recent science-based technologies, as well as applying these innovations. In sm
5、aller countries it might be a question about being able to absorb and use these technologies as they come on the market. Catching-up countries may make efforts to enter into specific promising established industries using new technologies in the process of doing so. Common for these strategies is th
6、at they tend to define strategic technologies and sometimes the sectors producing them are also defined as strategic sectors. The idea of strategic sectors may be related to Perroux and to Hirschman, both students of Schumpeter. Perroux used concepts such as industrializing industries and growth pol
7、es while Hirschman introduced unbalanced growth as a possible strategy for less developed countries (Perroux, 1969; Hirschman, 1969). In the lead countries, government initiatives of the technology policy kind were triggered when national political or economic interests were threatened and the threa
8、ts could be linked to the command of specific technologies. Sputnik gave extra impetus to a focus on space technology and the cold war motivated the most ambitious technology policy effort ever in the US. In Europe, Servan Schreibers book Le Defi Americain (Servan Schreiber 1967) gave a picture of a
9、 growing dominance of the US multi-national firms especially in high technology sectors. It gave the big European countries such as France, the UK and Germany incentives to develop a policy of promoting national champions in specific sectors. A specific important event triggering French and later on
10、 European efforts was the export embargo of computer technology that was seen in France as blocking its progress in the development of nuclear technology. The motivation behind the technology policy in Japan and later on in countries such as Taiwan and Korea - is different. It is driven by a nationa
11、l strategy aiming at catching up and in the Japanese case it has roots back to the Meiji revolution when the first ideas of modernization based on imitating the technology of the West were formed. One fundamental question in technology policy is if it is at all legitimate and effective for the state
12、 to intervene for commercial reasons promoting specific sectors or technologies. Or is the only legitimate technology policy one where national societal issues are at stake, including establishing national military power? It is a paradox that in the country having the most massive public interventio
13、n in terms of technology policy, the US, most of the policy has been motivated by non-commercial arguments and the discourse has been anti-state. Japan is the country with the most explicitly commercially driven technology policy with a recognition of a role for the state and here the intervention h
14、as been much more modest, at least in terms of the amount of public money involved. A second issue concerns what technologies should be supported. Is it always the case that high tech- and science-based sectors should be given first priority? Again the Japanese government as well as governments in s
15、maller countries has been more apt to think about the modernization of old industries than the US and the big European countries. A third issue is at what stage the support should be given. Should it be given only to pre-competitive stages or should it also be helpful in bringing the new products to
16、 the market? In the second case there might be a combination of government support of new technology and more or less open protectionism. A fourth issue is about the limits for public sector competence. Technology policy may be pursued with competence where government operates as a major user but wh
17、en it comes to developing new technologies for the market, the role of governments must be more modest. To be more specific, there are several historical examples of how government ambitions to make technological choices that reduce diversity have ended in failure, for example, the minitel experienc
18、e in France, and the High Definition TV policy in the EU, both in the early 1990s. A fifth issue concerns how promoting a technology or a sector can best be combined with competition. The period in the eighties of promoting single firms as national champions in the bigger European countries was not
19、a great success while the Japanese public strategy to promote controlled competition among a handful of firms was more successful The objectives of technology policy are not very different from those of science policy but at least to begin with it represented a shift from broader philosophical consi
20、derations to a more instrumental focus on national prestige and economic objectives. Technology policies were developed in an era of technology optimism. But later on in the wake of the 1968 student revolt more critical and broader concerns relating to technology assessment and citizen participation
21、 came onto the agenda (OECD 1970). The elements of the innovation system in focus remain universities, research institutions, technological institutes and R Metcalfe and Georghiou, 1998). The innovation system approach may be seen as bringing together the most important stylized facts of innovation.
22、 It makes use of empirical material and analytical models developed in innovation research, as well as in institutional and evolutionary economics. The major reason for innovation policy becoming more broadly used as a concept was the slow down in economic growth around 1970 and the persistence of s
23、luggish growth as compared to the first post-war decades. The reasons for the slow down in the growth in total factor productivity were, and still are, not well understood but there was a feeling that it had to do with the lacking capability to exploit technological opportunities. At the same time,
24、the restrictions imposed on general economic policy by fear of inflation made it important to understand the possibilities to promote growth from the supply side. This implies that the major objectives of innovation policy are economic growth and international competitiveness. In the European Union
25、discourse these objectives are combined with social cohesion and equality. Innovation might also be seen as a way to solve important problems relating to pollution, energy, urbanism and poverty. But the main focus is on the creation of economic wealth. Among the instruments to be used are the regula
26、tion of intellectual property rights and access to venture capital. One fundamental distinction in innovation policy goes between initiatives aiming at promoting innovation within the institutional context and, respectively, policies aiming at changing the institutional context in order to promote i
27、nnovation. The first category overlaps with instruments used in science and technology policy. The second may include reforms of universities, education, labor markets, capital markets, regulated industries and competition laws. 译文 科学、技术和创新的政策 资料来源：创新手册，牛津：牛津大学出版社， 2005(599-631) 作者：简莫薇尔 , 大卫 C. 和尼尔森
28、理查德 R. 技术政策 技术政策是指注重技术和部门的政策。当科学技术 ,如核能、空间技术、电脑、药物和基因工程被人们认为在经济增长扮演重要核心角色时，说明技术政策时代已来临。这些技术成为焦点的原因主要有以下几点：一方面 ,因为它们能让人们结合科学与虚构，使想象力不受束缚，可以做令人吃惊的事情。另一方面新的技术政策开辟了新的商业机会，能使人们高效率的创新和迅速占领市场。 技术政策在不同的国家，具有不同的意义。在高收入国家将最新的科学技术重点应用在建立生产能力创新上。在低收入国家，利用技术政策，进一步吸收和利用新技术，使产品得以在市场上生存。高增长国家或许只有当确定一个行业具有发展前途时，才会运用
29、新的技术。 在我们常见的战略中 ,人们倾向于运用“战略技术” ,有时他们将生产行业定义为战略部门。战略领域的想法可能与 Perroux 和 Hirschman 熊彼特的学生一样 ,使用 Perroux 概念 ,例如“工业化产业”和“区域增长极” ,然而 Hirschman认为：战略技术的运用在欠发达国 家中效果并不明显 , (Perroux,1969, Hirschman； 1969)。 具有远见的政府只有在国家的政治或经济利益受到威胁和挑战时，才会触发技术类政策并指挥特定技术。人造地球卫星的出现给了更多政府发展科学技术的动力 ,它同时也让各国把焦点集中在空间技术上。冷战时期最具雄心的技术政策
30、发生在美国。在欧洲 ,Servan Schreiber 的书该挑战的美国人 (Servan Schreiber 1967)给我们描绘出越来越多的跨国公司在高技术领域占有主导地位的画面。此书观点的提出，带动了欧洲国家 ,如法国 、英国和德国出台在特定的领域鼓励发展促进民族冠军的激励政策 ,然而其中法国人和后来欧洲人一味靠禁止出口计算机技术的政策 ,也为他们带来不小的损失，阻碍他们自身核能技术的发展便是其中一例。 日本的迅速发展离不开其技术政策的支持 ,这与后来追上的地区或国家 ,如台湾和韩国是不同的。日本的国家战略目标只有一个 ,它的渊源可追溯到明治维新时期，即第一次基于模仿西方现代化技术的形成
31、。 一个最基本的问题是如果一个国家同时拥有公民干预政策和技术政策并且两者均是可行的，有时候通过公民干预商业来促进特定部门或技术的发展。或者是通过唯一 合法技术政策来处理一个国家的社会事件 ,包括建立攸关国家军事力量，这两者会产生矛盾吗？在美国正因有了这两种政策，促使大部分政策对话已经激发了论点和非商业性话题，这已经属于一反常态范畴。而日本是明确最多的商业驱动技术政策国家 ,国家为此在这里干预曾非常有限 ,至少在足球的公共资金金额参与方面便有所体现。 第二个问题涉及到什么技术应当支持。以科学为基础的产业高科技应当给予最先考虑吗 ?在较小的国家日本政府比起美国和欧洲国家。更倾向于考虑传统工业的现代
32、化。 第三个问题是在什么阶段应当给予支持。只给予“竞争领域”或者更有助于将新产品推向市场阶段的支持吗 ?在第二种情形或多或少有有可能包含政府支持新技术的公开贸易保护主义。 第四个问题是关于公共部门的能力。只有当技术政策的用户是政府时，才能发挥它的能力 , 但是当它为开发新技术所用时 ,政府在市场中的境地就显得更为尴尬了。有几个历史性的例子说明政府选择用技术政策来促使本国产品与外国产品减小差异，然而到了市场中，政府的技术政策便显得苍白无力，最终以失败而告终。例如 , 在上个世纪 90 年代早期。无论是“迷你电话”在法国的经历 ,还是高清晰度电视在欧盟的经历，均印证了这一点。 第五个问题是促进 技
33、术、部门相结合的竞争。在上世纪八十年代期间单一公司促进国家领先，而在当前大欧洲国家却很难成功 ,但日本民众通过技术策略竞争的控制少数公司，却取得更大的成功。 从政策角度来说，技术政策的目标与科学技术的目标存在较大不同 ,这代表了从用哲学关注国内信誉和经济向仪器聚焦的转变。技术政策的时代发展技术是乐观的。但后来 沉浸在 1968 年的学生反抗 更重要和更广阔的有关技术评估和公民参与都一起走到议程中 (经济合作与发展组织 1970)。 创新体系的元素集中在高等院校、科研机构、科研机构和研发实验室。但重视运用则来自大 学工程系。技术政策可以进一步的使技术商业化 ,但后来则被称为创新的政策。 在一些国
34、家 ,如美国、主要技术政策以促进公共行业部门和采购部门技术为宗旨。在其他国家则以电信、国防、健康、交通、能源为主 ,如日本 ,他们则用技术政策来促进工业和贸易。由于技术政策的存在，多个国家很看重教育和研究 ,他们组织教育及培训的科学家和工程师并调节竞争的主管部门和其他主管机关，从而对技术政策和技术的发展产生重大影响。公共机构 ,可以使技术政策，通过组织技术评估和其他的方式涉及到公民。 目前，有多种仪器用于促进特定的技术和部门。最有效的是公共采购领域的组合仪器，但这些都是徒劳的。当政府运用领导能力 ,它让用户处于更好的位置来判断什么样的仪器工作 (Edquist et al. 2000)。除了公
35、共采购直接经济方面的税收减免补贴和条款，其余是不可献给公司的。在大学，科学领域的研发配套是新技术得以在公共领域扎根的重要原因。某个领域，既得利益的公共用户与部分缺乏透明度行业的出现，促使这些危险种类的政策是技术与“工业配合物”相结合，此外一个更微妙的问题是一种收敛性和协议技术方向上的发展轨迹 ,正朝向于更 有前途的行业 (Lundvall,1985)。 主要地区应用新技术的前景是集商业与仪器测量为一体，这可能是一个部门或技术相结合的具体经济动力，其中或多或少贸易保护主义政策。如 20 世纪90 年代初 ,欧盟对高清晰度电视的政策 ,欧洲生产商尝试定义一个新的技术标准来构建技术性贸易壁垒。更有希
36、望可以成为不同公司组织和知识机构支持的项目。过去的经验表明 ,无论是从内容和时间，还是至于什么特定类型的技术解决方案，都应该对准负面影响，进行限制竞争。 而评价的研究是非常重要的，也有类似的技术政策工具 ,他们可以重新技术政策。技术 预测是一种捕捉发展趋势的新技术。在科学界和诱导性专业中最先进的生产者和使用者可以使用技术预测，从而有助于统治下一代“战略技术”。并限制公众和私人公司获取独立政策评估的利益。毫不奇怪 ,这样的研究最后往往报道效果非常好 ,有很多的相同之处 ,也会优先考虑。在这种情况下 ,像在其他许多环境中合作伙伴之间太多的协议可能被锁定 ,它应被视为是否给“外人”作为评判强大的角色
37、。正如公共政策对以技术为基础的公司促进“岗位轮换”和“职能兼顾”。 值得一提的是 ,科学和技术政策是理想类型 ,为研究分析目的，并存在于现实世界先进的资本主义经 济中。然而 ,这一政策重点是，当我们将检查相关政策时 ,参与科技决策并不总能轻易分辨其中的一个或另一个类别，现在需要进一步引进更宽的成套政策。 创新政策 创新政策出现在两个不同的版本中。 是致力于平均值 将重点放在不干涉主义和信号 ,“应该致力于条件” ,而不是具体框架部门和技术。这往往伴随着词汇在任何具体类型中得到的负面航向，它聚集在选择“优胜者”方面。二是极端版本的这种类型的创新政策，当一个基础研究和通识教育被视为唯一合法的公共活
38、动和知识产权保护领域的唯一合法政府相关法规时，在更为温和的版本中，公共措施正在培 养企业家的积极态度 ,促进科学技术的群体被关注。 “其他版本可提交系统版本 ,并参照创新体系的概念”。这个观点暗示最重要政策字段可以被认为是针对他们如何创新。设计系统中各部分之间，一个基本的方面将成为创新政策的回顾和连结。第一种方法是在经济公司总是知道对自己最好的情况是什么（他们没有正常的市场失败 ),并建立标准假设，采取相应行动。第二个观点在综合考虑能力不平等分配给公司和良好实践发展下而言的 ,汲取和使用的新技术没有立即扩散在公司。 这种“失败”可能会超越新古典主义的“市场失灵”。所以机构协调 ,链接 ,或者地
39、址及各 种系统的需求等。 两种方法的各个方面 ,包括创新过程中扩散、使用和销售新技术 ,而且在某种意义上他们可能被视为是一种重要的形式，有的“经济政策”以创新为焦点，做事都倾向于 “机构组织”。在利益平均优势方面 ,成为市场竞争的最重要前提创新 原则上说一个单一的制度设计建议对各国创新更有效。 在系统的方法上，竞争的重要性是被公认的，不过是垂直需要用户之间和生产者竞争者加强合作 ,就开发普通技术而言，从系统的方法认识到 ,不同制度建立在国家经济中 ,某些国家的技术和行业就会得到相应的发展。设计一个适合的，有特别见解的创新政策 制度在全国系统中是非常有必要的。创新政策不含有任何偏好高、看低技术的准则。在一个特定的国家，介绍了一种系统方法的垂直的角度来看待这个工业体系把它看作是一个网络和价值链在某些阶段可能更适合公司。 创新政策标准问题的理论基础有两部不同版本，分别为以“勇于创新”的新古典经济学和长期研究经济进步和发展结果的理论 (Metcalfe, 1995; Metcalfe and Georghiou, 1998)。创新的系统方法可能被视为最重要的聚集在一起的典型事实创新。在创新研究和在制度与演化经济学中。它利用了模型分析和实证 材料。
