Achim Lang

Innovation Policy and Governance in High-Tech Industries : The Complexity of Coordination

Introduction.- Part I: Theories and Concepts of Innovation Policy.- Part II: National Systems of Innovation and High-tech Policies.- Part III: Sectoral Perspectives on Innovation Policy.- Part IV: Conclusions

E-Health Policy and Deployment Activities in Europe

OBJECTIVE e-Health has become a major topic in the European Union (EU) Commission due to the assumption that it improves the quality and effectiveness of health services and, at the same time, promotes information and communications technologies in this emerging high-technology area. In 2004, the EU Commission adopted the first e-health Action Plan, which sets targets for member states in the adoption of telematics applications. This article aims at explaining the variance in the application of e-health tools across 24 EU member states. METHODS The study includes the implementation of 12 e-health policies as of early 2007. Each policy was coded on a binary scale distinguishing between implementation and nonimplementation. The summing up of all binary values created an additive index. We used several multiple linear regression models to estimate the impact of socio-economic, political and healthcare related variables on the scope of implementation. RESULTS The scope of implementation mostly depends on political factors, whereas economic and health-related variables scarcely account for cross-country variance. Only the scope and importance of the domestic information and communication technology market have a significant effect on the scope of implementation. In contrast, political variables constitute most of the variance in the implementation scope. The strength of left parties in government has a significant effect: an increase of left parties in government increases the total amount of e-health measures implemented. CONCLUSION Governments that included e-health applications in policy documents rather early have adopted more telematics applications.

Die Netzwerkanalyse in der Policy-Forschung: Eine theoretische und methodische Bestandsaufnahme

Die Frage nach der Wirkungsweise von Akteurskonstellationen auf den Politikprozess ist nicht neu, aber immer noch aktuell (Raab/Kenis 2006). Bereits in den 1940er Jahren wurden mit dem Aufkommen des Pluralismusansatzes sowohl die Wettbewerbsbeziehungen zwischen organisierten Interessen betont als auch die horizontale Verflechtung von Regierung, Administration und organisierten Interessen hervorgehoben (McIver 1947, Truman 1951). Allerdings konnte sich erst seit den 1980er Jahren ein eigenstandiger Netzwerkansatz in der Politikwissenschaft etablieren, als deutlich wurde, dass offentliche Politik weder ausschlieslich auf funktionale Bedurfnisse und Anforderungen der Gesellschaft zuruckgefuhrt werden kann (Almond/Powell 1966), noch das Aggregat eigennutzig handelnder Individuen und Organisationen darstellt (Becker 1985). Vielmehr sind in den Politikprozess eine Vielzahl von privaten und offentlichen Akteuren eingebunden, die durch ihre Interaktion masgeblich das Politikergebnis bestimmen (Kenis/Schneider 1991, Raab/Kenis 2006).

From Simple to Complex : an Evolutionary Sketch of Theories of Business Association

Laments about the poor state of theory development in interest representation and associability are widespread (Knoke, 1986; Baumgartner & Leech, 1998). Despite the prevalent agreement on this matter, some scholars have only recently taken up the responsibility of investing in theory development and building a more compelling theory under the label of ‘neopluralism’ (Lowery & Gray, 2004; McFarland, 2004). However, their focus rests quite narrowly on economic, pluralist, and ecological approaches that share basic assumptions about the causal mechanisms of interest group activities, but on the whole cover a particular part of the theoretical landscape. Furthermore, their attempt does not distinguish between different interests or differing group characteristics. For the purposes of this volume their approach to theory development seems rather skimpy and too abstract to begin the endeavor. Therefore we will concentrate more specifically on theories and approaches that focus on organized business interests, a field where further theory development is also needed.

Policy integration: mapping the different concepts

ABSTRACT A growing number of studies have examined the collaboration of actors from two or more policy domains in order to integrate aims and concerns derived from one policy domain into another. In our literature review, we refer to this empirical phenomenon as ‘policy integration’, exemplified by the Health in All Policies approach. Despite the wealth of literature on the subject, the scientific community only has access to a portion of the insights that have come out of this field of research, due primarily to the fact that policy integration is discussed using a variety of different terms, which tend to be specific to the policy domain under investigation. To facilitate a more inclusive scientific debate on policy integration, we provide a comprehensive overview of the different terminologies associated with policy integration and analyse the recurring themes in the respective literature strands. What is the motivation for policy-makers to promote policy integration? What is the design of the instruments used for policy integration? How does policy integration affect the policy-making process? And how well does policy integration perform? These are the four questions guiding our study.

Government capacities and stakeholders: what facilitates ehealth legislation?

BackgroundNewly established high-technology areas such as eHealth require regulations regarding the interoperability of health information infrastructures and data protection. It is argued that government capacities as well as the extent to which public and private organizations participate in policy-making determine the level of eHealth legislation. Both explanatory factors are influenced by international organizations that provide knowledge transfer and encourage private actor participation.MethodsData analysis is based on the Global Observatory for eHealth - ATLAS eHealth country profiles which summarizes eHealth policies in 114 countries. Data analysis was carried out using two-component hurdle models with a truncated Poisson model for positive counts and a hurdle component model with a binomial distribution for zero or greater counts.ResultsThe analysis reveals that the participation of private organizations such as donors has negative effects on the level of eHealth legislation. The impact of public-private partnerships (PPPs) depends on the degree of government capacities already available and on democratic regimes. Democracies are more responsive to these new regulatory demands than autocracies. Democracies find it easier to transfer knowledge out of PPPs than autocracies. Government capacities increase the knowledge transfer effect of PPPs, thus leading to more eHealth legislation.ConclusionsAll international regimes – the WHO, the EU, and the OECD – promote PPPs in order to ensure the construction of a national eHealth infrastructure. This paper shows that the development of government capacities in the eHealth domain has to be given a higher priority than the establishment of PPPs, since the existence of some (initial) capacities is the sine qua non of further capacity building.

Collaborative Governance in Health and Technology Policy: The Use and Effects of Procedural Policy Instruments

Stimulating technological innovations and limiting access to expensive health technology require the coordination and coherence of overlapping policy sub-systems: research, market access, and reimbursement. This study investigates which procedural policy instruments proved more successful in integrating collaborative governance arrangements in Great Britain and Germany. A new classification of procedural policy instruments is developed based on the targeted dimensions of collaborative governance (network structure and policy phase). The comparative analysis rests on expert interviews and meeting records and reveals that, in Great Britain, active leadership prevails during the consultations, while Germany, in contrast, presents a case of inconsistent governance.

Die Einführung der elektronischen Gesundheitskarte in Deutschland : der Einfluss von Interessenpositionen und Sektorzugehörigkeit auf die Entstehung des Implementationsnetzwerks

This article raises the question as to which mode of governance has been established for the implementation of the electronic health card (eHC) in Germany and which coordination problems have emerged. It will be shown that the amalgamation of two different policy domains - namely health-care and innovation policy - leads to a novel governance configuration in which information exchange (hence governance) is affected by sector membership and interest similarity as opposed to anticipated financial burdens or influence reputation in the newly established policy domain. The study is based on a standardised survey of 29 organisations that are involved in the implementation of the eHC. The analysis is carried out using quantitative methods such as social network analysis.

Innovation Policy and High-Tech Development: An Introduction

The conditions for successful innovation policy have changed since the second half of the twentieth century, when most countries primarily focused on supporting basic research. This chapter reviews the transition from this historical, linear model of research and development (R&D) policy to the second generation of non-linear, networked approaches and the present emergence of models based in systems theory. It expands the notion of high-tech sectors by adding systemic and infrastructural dimensions of advanced technology industries to the traditional criterion of high knowledge intensity. Social scientific and policy models used to study and to design high-tech policy are briefly reviewed. To set the stage for the remainder of the book, recent approaches rooted in complex adaptive systems theory are introduced as promising frameworks for twenty-first century advanced technology policy.

Maternal health development programs: comparing priorities of bilateral and private donors

BackgroundThe face of international aid for health and development is changing. Private donors such as foundations and corporations are playing an increasingly important role, working in international development as direct operators or in partnerships with governments. This study compares maternal health programs of new development actors to traditional governmental donors. It aims to investigate what maternal health programs large governmental donors, foundations and corporate donors are conducting, and how and why they differ.MethodsA total of 263 projects were identified and analyzed. We focus on nine categories of maternal health programs: family planning services, focus on specific diseases, focus on capacity building, use of information and communication technology (ICT), support of research initiatives, cooperation with local non-state or state partners and cooperation with non-local non-state or state partners. Data analysis was carried out using Generalized Linear Mixed-Effects Models (GLMER).ResultsMaternal health policies of public and private donors differ with regard to strategic approaches, as can be seen in their diverging positions regarding disease focus, family planning services, capacity building, and partner choice. Bilateral donors can be characterized as focusing on family planning services, specific diseases and capacity-building while disregarding research and ICT. Bilateral donors cooperate with local public authorities and with governments and NGOs from other developed countries. In contrast, corporations focus their donor activities on specific diseases, capacity-building and ICT while disregarding family planning services and research. Corporations cooperate with local and in particular with non-local non-state actors. Foundations can be characterized as focusing on family planning services and research, while disregarding specific diseases, capacity-building and ICT. Foundations cooperate less than other donors; but when they do, they cooperate in particular with non-state actors, local as well as non-local.ConclusionsThese findings should help developing coordination mechanisms that embrace the differences and similarities of the different types of donors. As donor groups specialize in different contexts, NGOs and governments working on development and health aid may target donors groups that have specialized in certain issues.