دولت، سیاستگذاری و توسعه سیستم نوآوری : مورد سیاست های بیوتکنولوژی دارویی تایوانی (2000-2008)

This article focuses on the research of RTDI policies (research, technology, development and innovation), and the theme of this article is to link the three indicators together: RTDI policy-making process—the contents of RTDI policies—the appropriateness of RTDI policies on the configuration of the national, the sectoral and the technological innovation systems. We define the configuration of the three innovation systems as national, sectoral and technological innovation system (NSTIS). We assume the policy-making process of RTDI policies would shape the contents of RTDI policies. Once the contents of RTDI policies are implemented, the RTDI policies would influence, whether appropriate or inappropriate, on the NSTIS. We use the Taiwanese pharmaceutical biotechnology policies as empirical cases. On the basis of the empirical cases of Taiwan, we find that the consistency and appropriateness of RTDI policies are shaped by four variables: polity, horizontal coordination, vertical coordination and the involvement of external stakeholders. The policy-making process indeed shapes the RTDI policies which further shape the development of NSTIS.

Why some RTDI policies (research, technology, development and innovation) appropriately support the national technological and industrial development but others fail? It is one of the frequently asked questions of the date but lacking unified answers. The scholars of innovation systems have analyzed the economic and technological effects of RTDI policies on the different levels of innovation systems. While Freeman (1987) explains how governments promote technology and industrial policies to shape the overall national innovation systems (NIS), Malerba (2002) recommends that national institutions should match the specific characteristics of sectoral innovation systems (SIS), and Jacobsson and Bergek (1998) express the impact of national institutions on the technological innovation systems (TIS). The recent research of Chung (2012) has further explored the influence of RTDI policies on the dynamics of the configuration of the national, the sectoral and the technological innovation systems and defines the configuration of the three innovation systems as the national, sectoral and technological innovation system (NSTIS). Since different NSTIS within the same nation reveals different dynamics, RTDI policies should be customized according to the different dynamics of each NSTIS.1 However, as the existing literature of innovation systems still treats RTDI policy-making process as a ‘black-box’, until now the impact of RTDI policy process on the configuration of the three innovation systems remains unclear. Besides, political scientists have shown the divergent aspects of RTDI policy process. While some political scientists emphasize the policy coordination of RTDI policies (Braun, 2008), some others focus on the participation of policy stakeholders which shapes RTDI policies ( Inzelt, 2008 and Tournon, 1993). Nevertheless, as different political scientists only speculate the particular aspects of RTDI policy process, among the existing literature we can find very limited theoretical insights which display a whole picture of the policy process of RTDI policies. This article searches for a synthetic perspective for the analysis of RTDI policies based on the existing foundations of innovation systems and political science studies enlightening RTDI policy research. On one hand, we tend to understand the policy-making process which shapes the contents of RTDI policies, in terms of policy objectives and policy instruments. On the other hand, we tend to understand the influence of RTDI policies, whether appropriate or inappropriate, on the development of the configuration of the three innovation systems. We follow the definition of Chung (2012) and define the configuration of the three innovation systems as the NSTIS. Indeed the theme of the article is to link three indicators together: the RTDI policy-making process—the contents of RTDI policies—the development of NSTIS. We highlight the theme again in Fig. 1. Since we pay more attention to the linkage between RTDI policy-making process and the contents of RTDI policies, we use thicker arrow for the linkage between the two.We choose the empirical example according to the theme of the article, and the Taiwanese pharmaceutical biotechnology policies are chosen because of two reasons. First, pharmaceutical biotechnology itself shows the interesting dynamics of the configuration of the three innovation systems. The origin of modern biotechnology was tightly inter-linked with the evolution of pharmaceutical sector (McKelvey, 1996 and McKelvey et al., 2004). In different countries, pharmaceutical biotechnology not only possesses distinctive dynamics but is deeply shaped by the different national institutions (Giesecke, 2000 and Senker et al., 2000). Pharmaceutical biotechnology therefore provides a suitable empirical example for the analysis of the appropriateness of RTDI policies on the configuration of the three innovation systems.2 Second, the country of Taiwan offers a fascinating example to discuss the development of pharmaceutical biotechnology, the policy-making process and the appropriateness of RTDI policies. Pharmaceutical biotechnology in Taiwan reveals specific dynamics. The local small and medium enterprises (SMEs) were the main forces of pharmaceutical innovation. The knowledge base of the majority of companies was chemical engineering, and only a small number of companies started to adopt modern biotechnology in the late 1990s to carry out the products of bio-pharmaceuticals and new herbaceous medicines. During 2000–2008, the Taiwanese government promoted lots of policies to support the development of pharmaceutical biotechnology (Waluszewski et al., 2009), yet there has not been significant success (Dodgson et al., 2008). In fact all the policies were made in the conditions that the Taiwanese government was a presidential divided government,3 the elected politicians and administrators within the government faced serious problem for coordination (Wong, 2005), and policy stakeholders were not fully involved in the policy-making process. The Taiwanese pharmaceutical biotechnology policies were indeed dynamically formulated in the particular polity with characteristic interactions of actors on the multiple levels.4 Through analyzing the unique policy-making process of the Taiwanese pharmaceutical biotechnology polices, we will deeper understand how such policy-making process shaped the contents of pharmaceutical biotechnology policies in Taiwan which further shape the appropriateness on the innovation system of Taiwanese pharmaceutical biotechnology. The article is structured based on the theme. In Section 2, we establish the analytical framework which not only uncover the black-box of RTDI policy-making process but also analyze the influence of the policy process on the contents and appropriateness of RTDI policies. Section 3 describes the methodology used to operationalize the analytical framework for the empirical case studies. Among the various pharmaceutical biotechnology policies promoted by the Taiwanese government from 2000 to 2008, we only choose the National Science and Technology Program for Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals (typically shortened to be the National Program) and the Law of Pharmaceutical Affairs (typically shortened to be the Law) as the two cases. Section 4 analyzes the consistency and appropriateness of the two policies. Section 5 discusses the policy-making process of the two policies through the lens of our analytical framework. Section 6 reflects the analytical framework with the empirical cases. Section 7 concludes the article.

This article makes one of the first attempts to open the black-box of RTDI policy-making process. We judge the roles of the government and the RTDI policies from the perspective of NSTIS and provide the analytical framework which shows the process to make consistent and appropriate RTDI policies to foster the development of the innovation system. The government should thoroughly understand the uniqueness and dynamics of particular NSTIS before making policies. RTDI policies copied from foreign countries or another national sector and technology are very difficult to be effective and generate appropriate supports. However, we also acknowledge two limitations which need to be addressed by future research. First, we only apply the analytical framework for the analysis of the Taiwanese pharmaceutical biotechnology, and we adopt the qualitative method. We actually need more international comparative studies with broader methodologies to further explore the analytical framework and analyze how RTDI policies are shaped by different polity and actors’ interactions. Second, we are only able to analyze the influence of RTDI policy-making process on the appropriateness of RTDI policies. Yet, we are unable to at this moment analyze how the policy-making process of the two policies influences their effects and effectiveness in the long-term. The influence of policy-making process in the long-term needs the research in the future to explore it.