Libro Blanco Vol I en Ingles

TOWARDS A NATIONAL INNOVATION STRATEGY FOR COMPETITIVENESSVOLUME 1All these demands reinforce the points made in the February 2006 report: it is necessary to develop aNational Innovation System (NIS) to overcome the current deficiencies and limitations, and to have proinnovationpolicies that respond to the demands of governability and flexibility.In the work undertaken during 2006, the Council confirmed the diagnosis of the strengths and weaknessesof the National Innovation System; a system that has been progressively formed thanks to the endeavours andvision of a few, but that has led to a fragmented model, without a coordinating body, with agencies that do notcommunicate with one another, and sharp differences in thinking among its various components, without clarityregarding the capabilities and tasks of each participant and without the coordination needed to make the workcoherent; a system that, in addition, did not include players and realities that have proven to be fundamental ininnovation, such as education, technical training and life-long education.The problem of structuring the system and its institutional framework should, therefore, be tackledurgently. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the institutionalframework must anticipate, for example, how to overcome tensions that are inherent to the system and itsgoverning institutions and how to integrate vertical and horizontal policies that are part of the complexcharacteristics of the innovation system. This Council has indicated that the design of the institutionalframework is pertinent for an efficient systemic approach to the Knowledge Economy as well as to complementpublic and private endeavours in innovation.The analysis of the weaknesses still present in the system does not hinder us from recognising thesystem’s strengths; in fact, although only partially, parts of the system are rich in experience and recognised fortheir transparency and efficiency. It is these very strengths that allow us today to tackle the greater, butnecessary, task of raising our NIS to an appropriate level for the future challenges facing the country and thatexplain why the public budget given over to innovation increased by 9% between 2002 and 2006, nearly fourpercentage points above the GDP growth rate over the same period.A solid starting point is provided by the existence of various funds for science that are run withcontestable schemes and which allocate the resources according to criteria of excellence, as well as by theexistence of funding programs based on demand and aimed at leveraging private sector resources. [see Figure 1]It is necessary to develop a NationalInnovation System to overcome thepresent lags and limitations of proinnovationpublic policies, based on theimplementation of an institutionalframework that caters to the demands ofgovernability, representativeness andflexibility.The National Innovation Systemrequires an organizing body that isclear regarding the capabilities andtasks of each participant, and thatensures the coordination necessaryamong the institutions.THE FAILURES OF THE STATE OR THE GOVERNMENTAs chapter 2 indicates, there is the chance, albeit not the certainty, that public-private cooperation isbetter than leaving the private sector to act alone. This is why it is so necessary to review the potential failures96