The politics of partial success: fostering innovation in innovation policy in an era of heightened public scrutiny
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Policymakers have adapted to the challenge of rapid, innovation-based competition by using ‘Schumpeterian development agencies’ (SDAs) to foster continuous, radical experimentation. These peripheral agencies developed new policy instruments and business models that would transform their national economies when scaled by mainstream actors. In this article, we argue that this model is less likely to succeed in an increasingly politicized environment. The growing salience of innovation has instead led to the ‘politics of partial success’, sharpening the trade-offs between policy experimentation and implementation. We develop these arguments by first reviewing the history of two successful SDAs, the Finnish National Fund for Research and Development and the Israeli Office of the Chief Scientist, and then more deeply examining three newly established innovation agencies, Singapore’s Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovative Systems (VINNOVA), and Ireland’s Policy Advisory Board for Enterprise and Science (Forfás).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it