Mazzucato 2018 – Mission-oriented innovation policies¶
In brief
The article draws broader lessons from mission-oriented programmes for innovation policy and investment-led growth (p. 803) [U]. Mazzucato argues that missions require policy tools that are about market co-creating and market shaping, not only market fixing (p. 803) [U]. Missions are ‘systemic public policies that draw on frontier knowledge to attain specific goals’ (p. 804) [U]. She sets out lessons, criteria for choosing missions, and an example: a plastic-free ocean (pp. 805–813) [U].
Research question and main claim¶
- Case studies of missions have not resulted in an alternative policy toolkit; the article seeks to provide lessons for one (p. 804) [U].
- Main claim: missions require public organisations to actively shape and create markets, not just fix them (pp. 806–807) [U].
- What is needed is to abandon the ideology that often informs, and misinforms, the role the state can play in the economy (p. 813) [U].
Theoretical perspective¶
- Innovation systems literature (Freeman, Lundvall), evolutionary economics and Nelson's The Moon and the Ghetto (pp. 804, 807) [U].
- Critique of the neoclassical market failure framework (pp. 806–807) [U].
- The author's own concept of the ‘entrepreneurial state’ (p. 807) [U].
- The Maastricht Memorandum (Soete and Arundel) on old and new missions (pp. 804–805) [U].
Empirical material and context¶
- No systematic empirical study. Examples: NASA, DARPA, NIH, Germany's Energiewende, state investment banks (KfW, EIB, China Development Bank, BNDES), Solyndra and Tesla (pp. 805–809) [U].
- The article builds on a working paper and a European Commission report on missions for the Horizon programme (pp. 811, 814) [U].
Method¶
- Conceptual and policy-oriented article with illustrative cases [T – characterisation].
Key concepts¶
| Concept | How the source defines or uses it | Page | U/T |
|---|---|---|---|
| mission-oriented policies | Systemic public policies that draw on frontier knowledge to attain specific goals | 804 | U |
| grand challenges / wicked problems | Complex, systemic, interconnected and urgent problems like climate change | 803 | U |
| picking the willing | Choosing organisations willing to engage with a mission, rather than picking winners | 805–806, 809 | U |
| market fixing vs. market shaping/creating | Neoclassical intervention only for market failures vs. actively creating new markets | 806–807 | U |
| public value | More useful than ‘public good’, because missions can transform the whole value chain | 807, 809 | U |
| ROAR | Routes/directions, Organizations, Assessment, Risks and rewards | 809–810 | U |
| five criteria | Bold; targeted, measurable, time-bound; ambitious but realistic; cross-disciplinary; multiple bottom-up solutions | 811–812 | U |
How privacy and private data are understood¶
Topic not addressed [T]. Digital solutions and artificial intelligence are mentioned as areas missions could involve (p. 811) [U].
Arguments and findings¶
- Innovation has not only a rate but also a direction (p. 803) [U].
- Societal missions are more complex than the moon landing because they must be co-defined by many stakeholders (p. 804) [U].
- Mission-oriented agencies ‘tilted’ the playing field rather than levelling it (p. 804) [U].
- The question is not public or private, ‘but what kind of public and what kind of private’ (p. 808) [U].
- The public good concept has often been used to limit what public actors can do (p. 809) [U].
- If public funds act as venture capital, the state should share in the rewards, not only the risks (p. 809) [U].
- Defining missions should be opened up to wider stakeholders and civil society (pp. 808–809) [U].
Limitations the source itself mentions¶
- The changes in mind-set, frameworks, capacities and policies required are ‘by no means trivial’ (p. 813) [U].
- Political commitment and public legitimacy are challenges (p. 813) [U].
- Some areas are named as needing future study (pp. 808–809) [U].
What the source does not cover¶
- Privacy, personal data or digital policy as such [T].
- Norway [T].
Possible relevance for the thesis¶
- If Norwegian documents frame data use as a means to innovation, growth or solving societal challenges, Mazzucato provides vocabulary for that kind of state role [T].
- Her use of ‘public value’ instead of ‘public good’ (p. 807) adds a third meaning to compare with Fairfield & Engel and Bear & Mathur [T].
- The view of the state as an active market shaper can be contrasted with views of the state as protector of privacy [T].
Connections to other sources¶
- Asdal et al. 2023 – thematic: state, innovation and versions of the good economy [T].
- Fairfield & Engel 2015, Bear & Mathur 2015 – thematic: three different uses of public good / public value [T].
- Marres 2025 – thematic: Marres criticises experimental innovation and the ‘entrepreneurial state’ (Marres p. 5 cites Pfotenhauer and Juhl on this) [T].
Key quotes¶
“Missions—in the least—require those tools to be just as much about market cocreating and market shaping, as they are about market fixing.” (p. 803)
“Mission-oriented policies can be defined as systemic public policies that draw on frontier knowledge to attain specific goals” (p. 804)
“The key lesson is that it is not about public or private, but what kind of public and what kind of private.” (p. 808)
“Too often the public good concept has been used to limit and constrain the activities of public actors” (p. 809)
Open questions for Rebekka¶
- Do Norwegian documents present the state as a market shaper for data and digital innovation?
- Is there a tension in the documents between the state as innovator with data and the state as protector of privacy?
- Is Mazzucato in the thesis for theory on the state, or as an example of a policy discourse your documents draw on?