The permutation is an attempt to “blind” conflict theories of innovation- this papers over the hegemonic position of innovation studies

(Jon P., WorkingLifeAndInnovation@Agder, Creative Continuation: An Alternative Perspective on Innovation and Society In Debating Innovation: Perspectives and Paradoxes of an Idealized Concept ed. Rehn and Ortenblad)

By formulating it as a choice between two clear-cut options, I do of course simplify. Over the years, various strains of literature have attempted to attenuate these simple categories by pointing to social practices blending various aspects of innovational takes and procedures. Examples could be given as the often-repeated critique of “one size fits all-models” (Tödtling and Trippl 2005), the presentation of the CCI model of inno vation as a third way between STI and DUI practices (Isaksen and Karlsen 2013), and finally the fascination for “paths” as a concept for theorizing variety (Asheim et al. 2019; Tödtling and Trippl 2012). All these approaches may be understood as having meso-range theoretical ambition, meaning that they offer nuances to an overarching bifurcated theoretical framework, rather than challenging it systemically. From a more overarching perspective, the political science literature is filled with different models for dealing with the systemic challenges between various institutional heritages and the constant quest for innovation (Hall and Soskice 2001; Streeck and Thelen 2005). The problem is not the lack of alternatives to the present fascination for a one-dimensional take on innovation, the problem is the enduring hegemonic position of the one-dimensional way of thinking. The present turn to missions in the economic (and political) discourse only serves to rewrap the message. Mazzucato (2016), citing Polanyi’s ([1944]2001) pathbreaking analysis of the genesis of British capitalism, underlines that all economic systems are embedded in social structures. But she then refrains from offering a key to the further understanding of the anatomy and the following conditionalities and propensities of these structures. Tödtling and Trippl (2005) in their now classical paper stated that any uniform take on innovation would fail to deliver, as one size will not fit all. And Polanyi ([1944]2001, p. 147) himself seemed to fall prey to his eloquence having discovered that “…[l]aissez-faire was planned…” to elegantly continue “…planning was not.” Seen in hindsight, he was toying with the two competing modernist paradigms of the mid-twentieth century, market versus planning. And, admittedly, both were planned. It now seems appropriate to ask why Mazzucato’s preoccupation with embeddedness has not led her to take a U-turn and ask for more change-oriented policies to be tuned to place-based prerequisites, as one of the recognized problems with innovation policies in general—as to her mission-oriented economy—seems to be their lack of compliance with context (Brown 2021). Innovation is high on the political agendas, from the global to the local scenes. To those preoccupied with forging or promoting innovation policies, the analysis presented here has two important implications. First, it points to the importance of looking into a given region’s socio-cultural potential for innovation as a first step in any attempt at policy formation, as building on existing cultures and practices will most often be a legitimate and cheap way to establish working policy regimes. Second, these suggestions may imply the installation of less disruptive and more socially attentive policies than offered through (international) expert recommendations, often favoring economically and politically costly disruptive policy measures.