Changes in the Swedish research system

The importance of university research was emphasized throughout the 1990s in all OECD countries as a necessary precondition for new innovations. An important trend in the governance of research in a number of countries is the reduction of the core funding for university research compared to contract-based resources (Lemola, 2001; Geuna and Martin, 2003; for reduction in research funding in the U.S., refer to Howard and Laid, 2013). In general, government research institutes have been more affected than universities by the reduction of government support (Lemola, 2001). Another trend in Sweden is the transformation in research cooperation patterns as private firms have been encouraged to participate in international networks by collaborating with a number of international and domestic partners, including universities (Okubo and Sjöberg, 2000).

At the national level, although the Swedish Government has taken a stronger role in developing the technology infrastructure in Sweden and the social welfare system, its approach to internationalization has been less directed. The science, technology and innovation policy in Sweden and the historical evolution of intermediary agencies such as VINNOVA or the Energy Agency are rooted in the country’s political system. Also, the distribution of administrative tasks across the government agencies has shaped the STI policy in Sweden and the historical evolution of intermediary agencies. In Sweden, there is a historically engrained relationship between two government bodies: the ministries and its agencies (e.g. Swedish Innovation Agency, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, the Swedish Research Council FORMAS, etc.). This relationship is characterized by a certain degree of elasticity and informality concerning the governmental bodies’ modes of communication and the way in which information and decisions flow across their departments and offices.

Government bodies in this context refer to ministries and funding agencies. This context is embedded in the Swedish political institutional set up. The system of layered science policy (Edqvist, 2003) of the past is the basis for the understanding of today’s institutional set up in Sweden. This institutional set up plays a role in STI policy formulation, research funding and implementation.

The next paragraphs examine these transformations in more detail.

In the mid-1990s, the research governance structure in Sweden comprised of a mix of organizations that emerged over time during the last half century (cf.

Stevrin, 1978). This long process that gave origin to the current governing system of research policy in Sweden started during the WWII, in the 1940s when separate research councils for medicine, science, technology and social science/humanities were founded (Eklund, 2008).

In most industrialized countries and certainly in Sweden, present science, technology and innovation policies can be viewed as a system with three superimposed layers (Ruivo, 1994; Edqvist, 2003). The first layer of STI policy is the science as a motor of progress from the 1940s. The second layer in the 1960s refers to the perception of science as a problem solver, a “magic bullet”

tool that can resolve scientific problems (Edqvist, 2003). During this second period of the funding system in Sweden, in the 1960s and 1970s, sectoral research expanded and the research performed by the universities was commissioned and funded by government agencies. One of the rationales for government funding to universities was to increase the knowledge base in their policy areas or to support the process of technical change (Eklund, 2008).

During the third phase of STI policy, science is viewed as a source of strategic opportunities (Edqvist, 2003). This last phase of the 1980s, led to the increased focus on strategic research areas in Sweden.

Starting in the late 1970s through the 1990s new reforms were implemented (Benner & Sörlin, 2007). In 1968, a new organization was created – the Board for Technical Development (STU). The tasks of the STU included support to technical development and industrial research and support to the innovative activity of companies to strengthen them (Edqvist, 2003; Weinberger, 1997).

The establishment of the STU meant a shift towards support to technical development projects in cooperation with industry. The late 1970s saw two main policy changes. The first one was to support the industrial innovation system through STU. The other policy change consisted in the establishment of a stable and discipline-organized research council system under the control of the scientific community (Edqvist, 2003). Thus, two different strands of research policy were operating: the view of research as a motor of progress and the view of research as a problem-solver (Edqvist, 2003). Tensions between these two directions in research and innovation policy have become sources of contestations and they still persist today in the Swedish research system context.

During the 1970s there was also growing dissatisfaction with the research funding system. This dissatisfaction led to the widespread search for a more robust system of funding research with different purposes. After almost a decade of governmental investigations into the matter, a new outline of research funding and research policy making was incepted. (Edqvist, 2003; Schilling, 2003, 2005; Stevrin, 1978; Landberg et al., 1995). It was during this period that the three (later four) year Research Bill was launched as a measure to enhance the coordination of policy instruments and to try to align different goals, including support to basic research and international collaboration (Premfors, 1986).

In the 1980s and 90s, research became the focus again and hopes to steer research in the pursuit of critical issues were still alive (Edqvist, 2003). During that period, the research system incorporated one more layer to the already two existing dimensions – science as source of strategic opportunities (Schilling, 2003). The main vehicle for the pursuit of the strategic opportunities of research emerged in the form of a string of research foundations established in the early 1990s. The explicit purpose of these research foundations was to foster new combinations of research and exploitation with a particular bearing for the competitiveness of the Swedish economy (Sörlin, 2005). More recently, the strategic designation shaped initiatives such as the Strategic Research Areas that includes the Transport area and strategic innovation areas, in the 2008 and 2012 Research Policy Bills.

The case studies discussed in this thesis illustrate how Sweden’s financial resources for research purposes, including STI cooperation, are channeled and how these funding mechanisms reflect how specific international collaboration activities are governed and funded. For instance, in the case of the Chalmers University Transport Area of Advance, strategic areas are the focus and strategic research is carried out in the university but the research is also linked to industrial and societal interests and issues. One good example is the sustainability in the transport area as one of the visions of the Transport Area of Advance. The Chalmers Transport Area of Advance example reflects the typical research council mode of funding in which specific areas are the focus and funding is conditioned upon performance evaluations and also on the research quality of teams (Geuna and Martin, 2003; Auranen and Nieminen, 2010;

Hicks, 2012; see Kelly, 2016 for the Research Excellence Framework).

The VINNOVA approach to funding on the other hand, compared to the research councils’ model of funding, is based on the articulation of broader policies and goals for industrial development and for tackling societal challenges.

Thus, the implementation of the programs in the three government-sponsored cooperation initiatives discussed in this thesis illustrates the specific design of research funding in Sweden. In this research funding model, the layers represent different interests and networks, and therefore, distinct rationales for promoting and funding internationalization and STI cooperation schemes.

Furthermore, since the Swedish Government’s strategic reforms of the 1970s, there have been a series of efforts put forward by the Government of Sweden that suggests that government officials have been more proactive towards the promotion of internationalization. For instance, in 1994, the Swedish Government allocated money from the wage earner funds to the foundation STINT – The Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education - to promote internationalization of higher education in order to improve the attractiveness of Swedish universities and improve the quality of research in Sweden. In addition to the above goal, STINT had a broader purpose. It was first and foremost established to serve as a bridge between Swedish research and the rest of Europe. This goal has been accomplished through the facilitation of scientific mobility and research collaboration in Europe. However, STINT has since broadened its mandate.

Therefore, institutions tend to remain by identifying new roles and purposes.

Identifying new goals enables these institutions to renew themselves and survive.

In addition to STINT, the establishment of VINNOVA in 2001 reflected a national interest in innovation systems combined with an international focus which symbolized an attempt to revitalize the R&D and technology areas in Sweden. It also meant a step towards more systematic policy learning and towards a better understanding of the different roles and relationship with the ministries in this context (OECD, 2005). Some of the Swedish Innovation Agency’s responsibilities include the development and implementation of an adequate policy within the framework of the EU agenda (Andersson, et al., 2012). The expression “adequate” is broad and it can have different interpretations. It also reflects the nature of science, technology and innovation policies which also tend to be broad. The descriptions of VINNOVA’s tasks are general. Such tasks include: to strengthen the knowledge bases of growth areas in the Swedish economy, promote the development of strong research and innovation environments, work for more effective use of R&D, and act as an

expert agency contributing to the development of an effective innovation policy in Sweden - Prop. 2000/01:3. (Rickne et al., 2012).

The establishment of an innovation agency was supposed to symbolize a departure and separation from the agency’s predecessors and other funding agencies in Sweden (Rickne et al., 2012). The purpose was to contextualize VINNOVA as a funding agency focused on forging collaboration between different actors with a focus on effects, innovation and growth (VINNOVA, 2002). In addition, the purpose was to position VINNOVA as an agency that works in a modern and trade-shaping mode (VINNOVA, 2002). However, VINNOVA and the Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communication were not necessarily set up as a result of the need to integrate these areas but part of a broader goal to improve communication between policy domains and to make coordination and organization within the government more flexible (OECD, 2005).

Andersson et al. (2012) refer to VINNOVA’s implementation of a policy agenda as a complex task and that within this policy agenda, cooperation has been central to strengthening the collaboration between the public and private sectors and research in universities. In addition to establishing STINT and VINNOVA, more recently, the Swedish Government has been investing in research, development and innovation. The government’s Research and Innovation Bill 2013-2016 is an example of such efforts. The Research and Innovation Bill 2013-2016 focuses on a more specific and quality-based funding system coupled with a significant increase in budget for R&D. For instance, in the Research and Innovation Bill, innovation plays an important role in addressing social challenges. The Swedish Innovation Agency (VINNOVA), the Swedish Energy Agency and the Swedish Research Council FORMAS have launched a new program, the Strategic Innovation Areas (SIA).

Moreover, VINNOVA has initiated the Challenge-Driven Innovation (CDI) to address specific social challenges and international competitiveness through

“systems innovation”. The challenge-driven innovation approach is being pursued to orient innovation towards global challenges by enhancing service and product innovations. For instance the current proposal to focus on a transport system based on non-fossil fuels by 2030 is an example of such a broad innovative approach (European Commission, 2014). In both programs, the actors in industry and the public sector have developed the agendas and defined the goals. Funding for SIA was around SEK 145 million (corresponding to USD

16.8 million) in 2013, including approximately SEK 20 million (corresponding to USD 2.3 million) from the private sector. The funding was predicted to increase to SEK 1.25 billion (corresponding to USD 145 million) in 2016, with around 50% from the private sector (OECD, 2014).

Therefore, the new reforms discussed above, aimed not only to encourage new linkages between academia and industry but also to foster international quality assessment (Benner & Sörlin, 2007) and internationalization of higher education and research. Some of the major funding organizations in Sweden, such as SSF (Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research) were part of a broader goal to foster excellence and competitiveness, inspired by the American system, where the Ford, and the Rockefeller foundations assisted in the academic excellence towards entrepreneurship and commercial results (Benner & Sörlin, 2007).

These series of transformations and government reforms were not limited to education in general and in the 1990s Sweden underwent changes regarding policies for research and strategies geared to internationalization of research and innovation. Among the areas that underwent changes in Sweden is the governance, coordination and funding of research. The Swedish research system has been transformed over the last 20 years (Öquist and Benner, 2012), particularly within the Swedish funding model, university governance and career systems. The authors’ central argument is that a complex mix of goals and missions, hindering the universities’ ability to pursue high-quality research (e.g.

commitment to international standards and practical utility; focus on basic research while addressing societal needs), is a key factor explaining the decline of the Swedish research.

Views and interpretations of internationalization of science, technology and innovation in the Swedish context changed as well. Innovation and entrepreneurship have become part of research and development. Together, science, technology and innovation have become key elements in economic growth and in the international competitiveness of a nation. In addition, like in Germany and in Austria, Sweden has varying degrees of multi-level governance in research and innovation policies and a significant degree of diversity in their innovation systems (Kaiser and Pranke, 2004). This high degree of diversity is reflected in the international case studies presented in this thesis, where different groups belonging to different sectors form a large science, technology and innovation network. This network is part of the Swedish national context with

cross-border extensions and ramifications. The flow of people and ideas are also part of this diverse network.