Innovation Policy in OECD Activities: A Historical Reconstruction on Neo-Gramscian Foundations
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2023-12-10-265-287
Abstract
The article offers a historical analysis of the formation and development of the concept of “innovation” in the discourse of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The theoretical and methodological foundation of the analysis is based on contemporary international political economy, which posits the necessity of considering international institutions as expressions of certain group interests. A characteristic feature of this approach is its reliance on the views of A. Gramsci, who argued that contrary to the original tenets of historical materialism, social processes do not arise as a direct realization of the interests of the ruling class but reflect compromises reached between it and other groups in society. Accordingly, examining the development of ideas about innovation from this perspective demonstrates that this process operates as a reflection of the converging interests of the scientific community, financial capital, and the electronics industry, forming a “historic bloc” that holds a stable position in Western society. Taking OECD documents as the subject of research, which acts as an influential center for policy development with characteristic features of both a political and scientific organization, allows for discerning traces of the historical bloc’s construction and its ideological shaping within these documents. The article traces the prehistory of the emergence of this bloc, the formation of compromises that bind its participants, and the construction of innovation policy as a way to express interests that have come to the forefront as a result of these compromises.
Keywords
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),
International Political Economy,
Science and Technology Policy,
Innovation Policy,
Oslo Manual
Supporting agencies: The study is supported by Russian Science Foundation, project number 23-78-10093
About the Authors
E. A. Antuykhova
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ekaterina A. Antuykhova - Doctor of Political Sciences, Associate Professor, Professor, Department of World Political Processes
D. A. Talagaeva
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Daria A. Talagaeva - PhD in Political Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of English No. 6
References
1. Afontsev, S. A. (2010). Political markets and economic policy. Moscow: KomKniga. 384 p. ISBN 978-5-484-01207-7. (In Russ.).
2. Carroll, P., Kellow, A. (2011). The OECD. A Study of Organisational Adaptation. Chelten-ham: Edward Elgar Publishing. 320 p. ISBN 9781845429546.
3. Carroll, P., Kellow, A. (2021). The OECD: A Decade of Transformation: 2011—2021. Berlin: De Gruyter. 120 p. ISBN 9783110739312.
4. Clifton, J., Diaz-Fuentes, D. (2011). The OECD and phases in the international political economy, 1961—2011. Review of International Political Economy, 5: 552—569. DOI: 10.1080/09692290.2011.620464.
5. Cope, Z. (2022). Divided world, divided class. Moscow: Based Press. 544 p. ISBN 978-999999-1-47-6. (In Russ.).
6. Cox, R. (2009). The ‘British School’ in the Global Context. New Political Economy, 3: 315—328.
7. Danilin, I.V. (2020). Innovative transformation of the largest Internet platforms: trends and influence on national innovation systems. International processes, 4: 127—142. DOI: 10.17994/IT.2020.18.4.63.2. (In Russ.).
8. Edwards, S. (2023). The Chile Project. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 376 p.
9. Gayon, V. (2019). Debating International Keynesianism: The Sense of the Acceptable and the Neoliberal Turn at the OECD. Annales HSS (English Edition), 1: 113—156. DOI: 10.1017/ahsse.2018.21.
10. Godin, B. (2005). Measurement and Statistics on Science and Technology 1920 to the present. New York: Routledge. 360 p.
11. Godin, B. (2008). The information economy: the history of a concept through its measurement, 1949—2005. History and Technology, 3: 255—287.
12. Godin, B. (2009a). The Making of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy: Conceptual Frameworks as Narratives, 1945—2005. Montreal: Centre Urbanisation Culture Société Institut national de la recherche scientifique. 212 p.
13. Godin, B. (2009b). National Innovation System: The System Approach in Historical Perspective. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 4: 476—501.
14. Gramsci, A. (1991). Prison notebooks, 1 Moscow: Publishing House of Political Literature. 560 p. ISBN 5-250-00897-6. (In Russ.).
15. Gvishiani, J. M. (2004). Bridges to the future. Moscow: URSS. 372 p. ISBN 5-354-00239-7. (In Russ.).
16. Henriques, L., Laredo, P. (2013). Policy-making in science policy: The ‘OECD model’ unveiled. Research Policy, 3: 801—816.
17. Konnov, V. I. (2020). Scientific policy programs: paradigmatic analysis. Polis. Political studies, 16: 9—21. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.01.02. (In Russ.).
18. Leimgruber, M., Schmelzer, M. (eds.). (2017). The OECD and the International Political Economy Since 1948. Cham: Palgrave, Macmillan. 363 p.
19. Mahon, R., McBride, S. (eds.). (2008). The OECD and Transnational Governance. Vancouver: UBC Press. 324 p.
20. Martens, K., Jakobi, A. (eds.). (2010). Mechanisms of OECD Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 292 p.
21. Mirowski, P. (2011). The Science-Mart: Privatizing American Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 464 p.
22. O’Donovan, N. (2022). Pursuing the Knowledge Economy. Newcastle: Agenda Publishing. 232 p.
23. Pass, J. (2019.). American Hegemony in the 21st Century: A Neo Neo-Gramscian Perspective. New York: Routledge 266 p.
24. Peccei, A. (1981). One Hundred Pages for the Future: Reflections of the President of the Club of Rome. New York: Pergamon Press. 191 p.
25. Porter, T., Webb, M. (2008). The Role of the OECD in the Orchestration of Global Knowledge Networks. In: The OECD and Transnational Governance. Vancouver: UBC Press. 43—59.
26. Pradhan, R., Arvin, M., Bahmani, S., Bennett, S. (2017). The innovationgrowth link in OECD countries: Could other macroeconomic variables matter? Technology in Socie-ty, 51: 113—123. DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.08.003.
27. Reinhardt, R. O. (2015). Evolution of the concept of “economic diplomacy” in Russian scientific works. Law and Management. XXI Century, 1: 104—109. (In Russ.).
28. Reinhardt, R. O. (2015.). “Sistema Italy” as an example of innovative economic diplomacy. Bulletin of MGIMO-University, 6: 165—173. (In Russ.).
29. Savaget, P., Acero, L. (2017). Plurality in Understandings of Innovation, Sociotechnical Pro-gress and Sustainable Development: An analysis of OECD Expert Narratives. Public Understanding of Science, 5: 611—628. DOI: 10.1177/0963662517695056.
30. Schmelzer, M. (2016). The Hegemony of Growth: The OECD and the Making of the Economic Growth Paradigm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 396 p.
31. Schumpeter, J. (1983). The Theory of Economic Development. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. 320 p.
32. Talagaeva, D. A. (2022). Development of ideas about rationality in the history of economic doctrines of the 19th—21st centuries. Bulletin of Bryansk State University, 1: 249—264. DOI: 10.22281/2413-9912-2022-06-01-249-264. (In Russ.).
33. Woodward, R. (2022). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). New York: Routledge. 176 p.
Review
For citations:
Antuykhova E.A., Talagaeva D.A. Innovation Policy in OECD Activities: A Historical Reconstruction on Neo-Gramscian Foundations. Nauchnyi dialog. 2023;12(10):265-287. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2023-12-10-265-287
Views:
348
Email this article 