ABSTRACT. At the core of today’s science system is an implicit social contract between science and society: society, through government, provides public funds and a high degree of autonomy to the scientific community in return for the considerable but unpredictable benefits that science can provide society in terms of innovation, economic prosperity, and solutions to global challenges. This social contract for science and innovation is under strain. With the decline of trust, there are worrying signs of a public unsure about the value and authority of science in their everyday lives. There is a growing disconnect between what the public increasingly sees as unapproachable, elitist institutions and what scientists see as a lack of public appreciation for the modes and merit of their work. At the same time, there have been major developments in the processes of science and innovation and their intersections with public policy, communities, and communications. In this period of significant social, economic and environmental stresses, the need for science and innovation to be central to society's response is even greater. It is imperative that we rethink the postwar social contract and develop a renewed and strengthened relationship appropriate to the challenges and opportunities of this era.

This session will elaborate on the important role of science and innovation to address complex social, economic, and environmental challenges. Panelists from government, non-for-profit organizations and academia will provide important insights to address this important issue. The session will use a fish-bowl format, with panelists beginning the discussion and the audience moving in to participate as it unfolds. 

Moderator: Susan Cozzens, Professor Emerita, Georgia Tech

Panelists: Jeff Kinder, Council of Canadian Academies, University of Ottawa (postwar STI policy, trust in science) Rhonda Moore, Institute on Governance (science communications and governance) R. Sandra Schillo, University of Ottawa (inclusive innovation) Kent Williams, Acadia University (community-based innovation) Thomas Woodson, Stony Brook University (global impacts of technology on societal inequality)

ABSTRACT. This paper provides a systematic review of the literature on impact assessment of innovation policy, and includes empirical contributions from the last 30 years on impact assessment on innovation policy. This review does not focus on any specific geographic region in particular. The systematic review of literature is organized around four themes, namely: input additionality, output additionality or dynamic effects, policy complementarity, and subsidy allocation and Matthew effects; and around main methods of analysis, including propensity score matching, difference in differences and regression discontinuity design.

ABSTRACT. Abstract This study investigates the impact of Business Innovation and Growth Support (BIGS) Programs on the beneficiary enterprises R&D spendings by type of intervention, support mechanism, business size, age, and industry. The study uses the BIGS micro level data on program beneficiaries and links it with the business register and other admin data sources in the B-LFE to obtain enterprises level characteristics and the counterfactual group. The propensity score matching shows that both direct funding through BIGS and tax credits stimulate private R&D investment. Direct funding and fiscal incentives are complementary to each other. The study also found out that advisory support is equally important as providing financial support to increase business-funded R&D. The overall effect, however, masks substantial heterogeneity in the program’s impact. On average, the impact of BIGS support on private R&D investment is strong for small and medium-sized enterprises, for young enterprise less than ten years old and stronger in the manufacturing and professional scientific and technical services sector. It is suggested that the BIGS programs should implement differentiated subsidy strategies according to enterprise attributes.

ABSTRACT. Government support programs play an important role in promoting business growth and innovation by offering various incentives and facilitating access to resources. This study examined the impact of the Business Innovation and Growth Support (BIGS) programs, provided by the Government of Canada, on firm performance, which was measured using revenue, profit, and employment metrics. Using a rich and unique panel dataset that combines BIGS program information with firm-level data, the study observed the effects of BIGS on different types of businesses, including exporting vs. non-exporting and Canadian vs. US-owned firms. Unlike previous studies that relied mainly on survey data, one significant aspect of this research was the use of a new dataset, enabling to employ panel data structures and models. To model the firm’s innovation and business growth process, the CDM (Crépon, Duguet and Mairesse, 1988) framework was adopted and adjusted to fit the context of BIGS programs and firm performance. The results of the study indicated that BIGS programs had slightly greater effects on non-exporting firms than on exporting firms. Moreover, the findings showed that BIGS programs had more significant effects on employment levels in US-owned firms compared to Canadian-owned firms.

ABSTRACT. The automotive industry is one of the most important industrial sectors in Mexico, representing 3.5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, generating more than 930 thousand direct and indirect jobs in 2021, producing a little more than 3 million vehicles in 2021, becoming the 7th producer worldwide (Mexican Association of the Automotive Industry, 2023). The goal of this article is to study decent work in the terminal automotive industry, specifically in the BMW plant in San Luis Potosí, which is a luxury automobile manufacturer, located in a lowland region in Mexico. We selected a company that has only one final assembly plant, in this case BMW in San Luis Potosí. This company is recently established, with Industry 4.0 technology and produces premium cars. The main research question was: What level of decent work exists in automotive companies that manufacture vehicles with greater added value and that use frontier technologies in their production processes? As a scientific method, documents were reviewed and interviews were conducted with managers, engineers, union representatives and workers, seeking to have socio-labor and technological indicators, both with hard data and based on the perception of these agents. This allows us to advance in determining decent work in automotive companies through a case study. This work was carried out during the situation of the technical strike generated by the global semiconductor crisis. As a result, it was found that decent work can be seen from different angles and not only in the economic benefits within the company. The emotional salary is another indicator that shows that decent work goes beyond salary and economic benefits; In this case, it was proven that it is possible to improve working conditions at all occupational levels. These benefits, tangible and intangible, are of vital importance for workers both inside and outside the workplace. From the organizational environment where the workers operate, the quality of the food and transportation, the culture in which they are immersed and the recreational spaces were positively recognized. The emotional salary, as BMW calls it, allows the integral development of the worker inside and outside the company, as well as integration into society. Everything indicates that working in a multinational of German origin implies a change in mentality, behavior, education and ways of relating. Which has a positive impact, not only on the level of decent work, but also on the way of life of BMW workers. It was also demonstrated that in terms of health and safety the plant behaved in accordance with quality management standards such as ISO 9001-2000. The standards and regulations under which BMW works also correlate with decent work, the more rules there are in a multinational, the better the work will be. Following these standards imposes better employment conditions on the company, in the sense of training staff, having operational processes with ergonomic methodologies, high quality standards that facilitate the work of staff, and having soft and hard technology in the processes. This, on the one hand, improves work by not wearing out the worker and guarantees that employees obtain skills and abilities in technologies that can later be used in other jobs. Working in a multinational company with rules and regulations is synonymous with obtaining knowledge that can be applied in another company, such as in the case of electric vehicle assemblers. Finally, it was found that companies with frontier technologies have a good level of decent work.

ABSTRACT. The rationale behind government support for innovation is that it contributes to the creation of knowledge and innovation activities to address problems relevant to society. As indicated by Cohen and Levinthal (1989) one of the outcomes of engaging in research and development (R&D) activities is indeed the creation of knowledge. Knowledge creation has important implications to the ability to solve problems, since the combination of new and old forms of knowledge brings the opportunity to solve complex problems with innovative solutions. Therefore, it is of the main interest of governments to contribute to knowledge creation activities by incentivizing innovation at the firm level. Antonelli (2018) states that “[P]olicy implications suggest that along with public interventions designed to support the supply of knowledge and to compensate for missing incentives, much attention should be paid to all interventions that favour the dissemination of knowledge and the knowledge connectivity of the system”. Much of the work that focuses on assessing the effects of government support to innovation at the firm level focuses on the “input additionality” and “output additionality” effects from this support. These studies have contributed to understanding the specificities and heterogeneity behind the different forms of government support and the differences in effect according to firm specific characteristics, and contextual characteristics, and in the role that these initiatives play for fostering innovation ecosystems.

Government support programs represent program designers’ interpretations of policy directives towards strategic outcomes. Public policy innovation programming initiatives converge on the intent to develop innovation ecosystems composed of organizations from the business, government, not for profit and higher education sectors to improve and ensure citizens’ health, well-being, security, inclusion, and economic prosperity. These outcomes are expected to be met via the promotion of communities’ social cohesion, innovation activities and commercialization of technology activities. The Canadian federal government’s business innovation support programs are prime examples of this convergence of policy intent (see for example ACOA, 2019). Designed and administered in part by regional development agencies (RDA) such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), and the National Research Council (NRC) federal business innovation support programs have complementary objectives and purposes with program managers and agents that for reasons of program efficiency, effectiveness, and economy are challenged to work synergistically. ACOA brings a regional lens to the federal programs (Bradford 2018) whereas NRC implements a national program regionally.

Developing strong ecosystems of innovation, or collaborative networks of recipients of government business support programs is the one of ACOA’s stated objectives for its business innovation support programming (ACOA, 2019). This paper seeks to determine the ability and effectiveness of government support programs such as ACOA’s Business Development Program (BDP) of the Atlantic Innovation Fund (AIF), and the Regional Economic Growth through Innovation (REGI), and the NRC’s reputed Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) in creating an Atlantic Canadian Innovation ecosystem composed of program recipients and enablers.

Using Proactive Disclosure Data (PDD) that lists recipients from NRC-IRAP and ACOA’s BDP and REGI programs from 2010-2019 we identify the beneficiaries of these programs and the projects of interest. We combined PDD with news and web sources to identify the connections between the recipients, and other ecosystem actors to assess the role of government support to contribute to the emergence and strengthening of innovation ecosystems in Atlantic Canada. We implemented machine learning algorithms to identify the connectiveness between organizations, and the role of government support for fostering these networks.

The paper is organized as follows: in section two we discuss relevant literature and elaborate our conceptual framework, section three presents our methodology and data, section four presents our analytical results, and section five presents the conclusions and policy recommendations.

ABSTRACT. This research project explores the role of makers and makerspaces as catalysts for responsible production for community economic development in Atlantic Canada. Framed within the theoretical underpinnings of ecological economics and commoning, the study explores the connections between maker activities and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with a specific emphasis on responsible consumption and production. Drawing inspiration from ecological economics, which argues that economic systems are embedded within and dependent upon ecological systems, the research explores how makers, by engaging in responsible production practices, contribute to ‘community ecological economic development’ (CEED). This new approach brings ecological economics and community economic development together. This perspective aligns with the broader discourse on the need for sustainable, community-driven, and regenerative economic models to address the environmental challenges facing our world. The theoretical lens of commoning also provides a foundation for understanding the collaborative and community-driven aspects of maker initiatives. Commoning emphasizes the collective stewardship of shared resources and the promotion of a participatory and inclusive approach to economic activities. In this context, the research aims to uncover how makerspaces function as hubs for innovation and entrepreneurship, fostering a communal ethos that aligns with the principles of responsible consumption and production. The overarching objective is to explore the underlying values and principles that guide responsible production within the maker movement and the role and relationship this has within CEED. The study integrates systems thinking methodologies to capture the complexity of the maker ecosystem. Research Questions: a. How do makers in Atlantic Canada perceive and navigate the ethical dimensions of their production activities within the broader context of responsible production? b. What are the social implications of maker-driven responsible production, and how do these implications influence community dynamics and well-being? c. What are the existing boundaries between makers, local communities, and established economic structures in Atlantic Canada, and how do these boundaries shape responsible production practices? d. How do makers negotiate and interact with these boundaries, and what challenges and opportunities arise in the process of integrating responsible production into the local socio-economic fabric? These research questions aim to unravel the ethical and social complexities inherent in maker activities within the context of responsible production, as well as to explore the dynamics at the interface between makers, communities, and existing economic structures in Atlantic Canada. They provide a framework for investigating the nuanced interactions and implications of the maker movement in the pursuit of CEED through responsible production. To answer these questions, this research adopted a systems thinking approach, recognizing the interconnectedness and interdependence of various factors influencing the maker movement in Atlantic Canada. Two main methods were used: a. Critical Systems Heuristics: Critical systems heuristics serve as a theoretical framework to assess the ethical and social dimensions of maker activities. This approach acknowledges that responsible production extends beyond environmental considerations to encompass ethical and social implications. By critically examining these dimensions, the research uncovers the potential challenges and benefits associated with maker-driven responsible production, offering insights into the broader societal impacts. b. Boundary Critiques: The boundary critiques methodology, rooted in critical systems thinking, explores the interfaces between makers, local communities, and existing economic structures. This theoretical perspective acknowledges the interconnectedness of these entities and seeks to identify areas where responsible production practices can be seamlessly integrated. By exploring these boundaries, the research contributes to a greater understanding of the socio-economic dynamics of making, empowering stakeholders to develop strategies that enhance community resilience and economic development. Employing critical systems heuristics resulted in an assessment of the ethical and social implications of maker activities on responsible production, providing valuable insights into potential challenges and social impacts. This methodology revealed areas of alignment and divergence with community values, offering guidance on how makers can integrate responsible production practices that resonate with the local community. The boundary critiques identified integration points for responsible production within the boundaries between makers, local communities, and existing economic structures. This process helps to recognize opportunities for empowering local communities through maker activities, contributing to strategies that enhance community resilience and economic development through responsible production practices facilitated by makers. Collectively, these outcomes inform stakeholders and decision-makers, fostering a sustainable and responsible approach to production within the Atlantic provinces of Canada. This research project is situated within the theoretical and applicable landscape of CEED to investigate how makers and makerspaces contribute to responsible production for community economic development in Atlantic Canada. Applying systems thinking methodologies adds depth to the exploration, capturing the complexity and interconnectedness inherent in the maker ecosystem and providing a holistic understanding of the pathways to achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals that are aligned with community values and take advantage of existing opportunities within overlapping boundaries of different institutions.

ABSTRACT. This paper investigates the effects of pro-competitive reforms on labour share of value added, utilizing a comprehensive firm-level financial data from Korea, covering the period from 1992 to 2011. The study employs a difference-in-differences (DiD) methodology, leveraging the quasi-experimental variations introduced by these reforms, to assess their impact on the corporate sector and labour market. The findings suggest that these reforms do not significantly affect the markups of Korea’s top 30 chaebols. However, the DiD estimation reveals that these reforms have led to a considerable decrease in the overall labour share of value added and an increase in the profit share of these large enterprises. These results raise concerns about the neoliberal agenda to restructure the economic system and emphasize the importance for policymakers to consider the potential trade-offs between pro-competitive reforms and their effects on labour market outcomes. This study contributes to the literature by shedding light on the implications of pro-competitive reforms for market power and labour share in the context of financial crises, providing insights into the debate on the relationship between pro-competition policies and labour market outcomes.

ABSTRACT. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) was launched by China with the main official goal of bringing about innovation and economic development for its member countries. In this paper, we conceptually examine the BRI through the innovation system approach, in an attempt to link the BRI’s notions of innovation and economic development to its host developing countries. In this process, we present a novel form of innovation system which is externally driven by one foreign actor, the Chinese government, and implemented across other countries. We propose that the BRI functions as a political innovation system where science, technology and innovation (STI) diplomacy is one of the main unifying forces of the countries involved.

ABSTRACT. The Eurocentric approach to development has several implications for the Indigenous communities and their way of life, including the decline of the social and cultural values of the people as well as threats to their way of life and identity. Exclusion of the people in the development processes has led to contextual misalignment of development and local value systems. Inclusion and participation in the development processes will allow for self-determined development and contextual alignment of the outcomes in Indigenous communities. Self-determined development will allow Indigenous communities to control their own fate and possibly preserve their way of life and cultural identity while empowering them to carve solutions grounded in their worldviews to modern problems. One way to allow for self-determined development is to empower Indigenous communities to chart their own development goals. To find a solution, we examine the question, "What are the processes necessary for creating endogenous development objectives in Indigenous communities?" In this study, an inclusive and qualitative approach was taken to co-create a model for self-determined development in Indigenous communities in the Rupununi. This model for self-determined development can be adopted to empower the citizens to have a voice in development policies and programs in the region.

ABSTRACT. This study examines the impact of both gender and gendered agglomeration - viewed as a circumstance in which firms with a given gender composition tend to establish themselves in specific cities - on innovation dynamics in terms of knowledge spillovers. Our framework considers gender composition of ownership, management, and workforce, as well as various types of innovations including product, process, marketing, aggregate innovation, and R&D. The paper employs an ordered probit and a two-stage Heckman probit models with instrumental variable to address both selection and reverse causality issues between gender and innovation. Using data from the 2016 World Bank Enterprise Survey on 3,921 African firms, this study yields four main new findings: (i) both male and female agglomeration influence positively the probability of innovating, (ii) the positive effect of, having a woman as manager, having fewer woman among both the firm's owners and workforce, is contingent upon the variety of innovations within the firm, (iii) in term of human capital, the nature of the agglomeration does not matter for innovation, and (iv) R&D expenditures decisions are made by the firm’s ownership rather than its management.

ABSTRACT. This research aims to measure the psychology of sustainability in a sample of 140 entrepreneurs. The sample is part of a regional innovation system. The instrument used has been adapted to the Spanish language in order to determine the degree of interest, motivation and self-efficacy of the participants with regard to each of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Results show associations between dimensions assessed and gender, location, sector and years of experience. Empirical evidence of low self-efficacy to address the UN 2030 Agenda is supported, highlighting the need to create the capacity and conditions to move from attitudinal to action-oriented. Therefore, it was decided to take action to better understand the psychology behind the situation and design strategies for change.

ABSTRACT. In our NACLICs session we will present a 14-minute documentary that we produced from the our SSHRC research project. The documentary is made up of interviews from with our research participants and taken from our Thriving Futures community engagement event in October 2023. This documentary shows the impact of engaging a university and extended community in awareness of the sustainable development goals and thriving futures. In supplement to the documentary we will have a paper available to those interested in the research outcomes of our research.

Why this Research is Important

Coming out of recent Congress of the Parties Meeting 28 (COP28) sustainability is becoming mainstream––it is trendy, it's fashionable. Contrary to this sentiment, habitual patterns of practice continue to resist and hold out on the call for new practices, e.g., no agreement to the end of fossil fuel use. However, scientific truth continues to mount, giving undeniable evidence that we are at a dangers precipice for humankind as we face the climate and interconnected crises. Without action we face the tragedy on the horizon (Carney, 2015). In our world of increasing complexity and chaos, humanity faces multiple emergent challenges that have no present solutions. Considering this, the United Nations has identified and put into action a universal strategy underpinned by human rights to embrace our turbulent and changing world with the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015d). It's a comprehensive universal framework for action in line with the urgency of the challenges we face: the climate emergency; nature in crisis; mounting inequality. These goals for a 2030 target were ratified at COP25 in Paris by all the countries of the world (except for two). Leaders throughout the world have signed the 2030 Agenda for tackling the world’s most serious problems and the grand challenge of living within Earth’s carrying capacity. It is being woven into strategies at both the micro and macro levels, from local to global (He et al., 2018; Weymouth & Hartz-Karp, 2018). However, recently on the eve of COP28 in Dubai, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that represents the world science on climate, shares we are failing to meet the necessary goals to curb a warming planet and is calling on all governments, institutions, and its citizens to act on climate (cite).