| Abstract [eng] |
This paper examines the reasons for the success and failure of public policy on the Government's horizontal priority of innovation policy reform. The subject of this work is the 17th Government's priority - structural reform of innovation policy. Innovation policy in the context of Lithuania's institutional set-up primarily requires the involvement of two ministries. Although in theory the successful functioning of the innovation ecosystem should generate benefits for both communities, a tense relationship has developed between them. In such an environment, the implementation of horizontal policies should face additional challenges, especially given that the implementation of the Innovation Reform has been entrusted to only one of the two ministries. During the reform process, there was no significant public opposition to the reform or any attempt to propose an alternative reform concept, and the reform was overwhelmingly supported during the vote in Parliament. Although not all the objectives of the Innovation Reform were achieved during the 17th Government, the main objective of the Innovation Reform - to consolidate the agencies responsible for the implementation of innovation policy - was achieved during the 18th Government with the establishment of the Innovation Agency. In view of the above, the problematic question of the thesis is formulated as follows: why did the structural innovation reform of the 17th Government achieve at least a partial success, despite the inherent horizontal policy features of innovation policy and the confrontation between the ministries in charge of innovation policy? To answer the research question, the thesis is divided into two thematic parts: the aim is to assess the success of the reform (assessing whether the reform has achieved programmatic, procedural, and political success) and the aim is to explain the conditions for the success or failure of the Innovation reform. Based on Nakrošis et al's modified advocacy coalition framework, Candel and Biesbroek's policy integration framework and other theories on public policy intervention, innovation and innovation policy, leadership, networking, the paper formulates two hypotheses. The first hypothesis concerns the beliefs of the subsystems involved in innovation policy regarding the need for innovation policy integration. The second hypothesis relates to the environment for learning at the time of the reform - the type of leadership and the confrontation between advocacy coalitions. The study is primarily based on semi-structured qualitative interviews. The interview program involved interviews with representatives of both sub-systems - the Ministry of Science, Sport and Education and the Ministry of Economy and Innovation, former directors of the implementing agencies (which were consolidated during the reform), and independent actors involved in the reform. The interview program allowed for the identification of the beliefs, the assessment of the relationship, the cooperation, and the evaluation of the representatives of the relevant ministries. The study allowed for a partial confirmation of both hypotheses. The results of the empirical part allows to combine the two modified hypotheses, formulating them as follows: in the case of horizontal policy, when there are different views among the subsystems on the nature, format, priorities of the integrated policy, the effective application of transactional leadership in the implementation of the horizontal priority of the government increases the confrontation and conflict between the subsystems and decreases the likelihood of a successful integration of policy. Accordingly, it is proposed to add a clarifying clause to the Candel and Biesbroek's policy integration framework - non-conflicting views between the subsystems on the nature, format, priorities of the integrated policy are necessary condition to expect greater integration of the horizontal policy tools and the objectives. |
