This article suggests that variations in the dominant pattern of innovation policy coordination can be analysed and understood effectively by dividing innovation and other complementary socio-economic policies into low-complexity and high-complexity tasks.
The effective implementation of these two sets of policy tasks that differ in the extent, nature and intractability of collective action problems confronting the coordination process hinges on the strength of two sociopolitical institutions: bureaucratic organizational structures and interactive governing arrangements. While bureaucratic organizational structures are better suited to delivering low-complexity tasks, interactive governing arrangements are more effective in resolving high-complexity policy problems. They interact differently across political economies to structure the management of coordination challenges and thus give rise to divergent patterns of innovation policy-making. The comparative analysis of innovation policy coordination between Hong Kong and Singapore over the past two decades lends strong support to the central theoretical propositions of the article.
The COVID-19 pandemic poses unprecedented challenges to public health care systems and demands intergovernmental coordination to cope with the resulting medical surge. This essay analyzes the operation of Paired Assistance Programs (PAPs) in China, offering a timely comparative case for researchers and practitioners to examine when reflecting on the classic debate over the hierarchical versus network approaches to coordination in emergency management. PAPs highlight the importance of network management and necessity of institutionalizing mechanisms of governance to facilitate coordination within multilevel response systems. 相似文献
