Comparison of innovation policies in selected European, Asian and ...

H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
C
o
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
S
c
o
r
e
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 2.8: Coherence by high-level framework
Figure 2.9 shows how the case study countries rate on both adherence to NIS concepts and
horizontal coherence. Having a sophisticated or advanced NIS system does not assure
horizontal coherence – it is still a problem for Norway. Horizontal coherence and NIS
concepts may not necessarily imply competence to a run system or the appropriateness of the
system, e.g., Estonia. Similarly, horizontal coherence and NIS concepts may not necessarily
imply completeness of NIS, e.g., Ireland (lack of developed public research sector). Note that
many other countries’ horizontal coherence, including New Zealand, is limited by
agencification of policy domains which will always occurs to some extent. Note that Belgium
is able to achieve some degree of horizontal coherence because it is a policy priority, and this
suggests that other countries may have to put more priority on horizontal coherence to achieve
improvements since it will not happen by itself.
The implication for New Zealand as it implements changes to governance arrangements is
that better adherence to NIS concepts will not itself ensure better horizontal coherence. The
lesson from Belgium is that a tangible commitment to horizontal coherence will produce the
result.
31
Ireland
Switzerland Belgium
Australia
Chile, New Zealand, Austria, Sweden
Norway, Portugal
Czech Rep
Finland, Estonia
Netherlands Denmark
Korea
Iceland, Italy,
Slovenia
Japan
0 1 2 3
High Level Framework
4 5 6