Lobbying means the entrepreneurial state is subject to regulatory capture – that directs innovation to antisocial outcomes

Schumpeterian = the theory that profit motivates innovation through entrepreneurship

Schumpeterian-Keynesian = the idea that the state can channel this profit into social-welfare enhancing activities

In previous works (Papaioannou 2014, 2016, 2018), I have argued that state politics is not necessarily the best way to steer pathways of innovation justice and embrace pluralities of alternative innovation futures. This is not only because of capacity and legitimacy issues of states but also because of the fact that, as a recent UNRISD (Citation2022, 14) report points out,

There are sufficient data to suggest that political systems bent towards the preferences of elites … Elites wield influence over policies and legislation through various strategies, including influencing the electoral process through business networks and lobbying, media control or outright state capture.

UNRISD in essence confirms Wright’s recent diagnosis and critique of capitalist democracy that, according to him, it is unable ‘ … to insulate political decision-making from the exercise of power connected to capitalist wealth’ (Wright Citation2013, 7). In turn, this diagnosis also confirms that the political pressures to conflate practices of directing, direction and directionality of innovation (Stirling Citation2024) are real characteristics of the political state within capitalism.

This implies, for example, that an entrepreneurial state intending for Schumpeterian–Keynesian politics can be easily highjacked by lobbying groups representing the narrow interests of multinational companies (e.g. energy giants, big pharmaceuticals, etc.) and directing innovation towards unjust outcomes. More transparency and participation regarding the decisions of entrepreneurial state would be possible with greater engagement of publics. The conditions of such engagement include education, time and resources. Yet the entrepreneurial state appears to be centralised and unable to meet transparency and participatory requirements of innovation (Papaioannou 2021). Indeed, as Ziegler (2020, 83) notes

These transparency and participatory requirements might slow-down the pace of change, but if the reason for the slow-down is greater consideration with a view to improving benefits to the least advantaged, then the slow-down in such cases is part of innovation for justice.