At the start of the network a number of Governance challenges were identified which we decided to tackle through different entry-points, whatever interactions existed between them. This has driven in some cases to project redefinitions and mergers with or in others.

The first one dealt with the locus of policies and rise of new policy actors (Europe and regions) driving to reconsider the assimilation of public intervention with national policy. ERA dynamics (see under knowledge production regimes) dealt with Europeanisation articulating knowledge dynamics with aspects of integration and multilevel governance conceptual frameworks. ERISP focused on regional research and innovation policies. Though there is a lot of work on industrial districts, clusters and regional innovation systems, there has strangely been very limited work (and most of it descriptive) on policies developed by regional authorities. Most de facto consider regional policies as national policies ‘writ small’. The review work initiated has developed a new conceptual framework (under publication by Research Policy) and a book (under finalisation) which objective is to be thematically structured around the key dimensions and dynamics of regional research and innovation policies.

The second one dealt with policy processes. It highlighted the growing role of ‘arenas’ and ‘multi-actor spaces’ in the actual framing of policies. It ambitioned to develop both a research project and a experimentation of what, following a previous EC project ASTPP, was labelled as ‘fora of strategic intelligence for research and innovation’. This drove to a first workshop on experiences of public debate, Assess ST Gov, and then to a research project dedicated to study the effective conditions of a future experiments. The Forum exploratory project was instrumental in delineating what a forum (probably better termed as a ‘foresight and policy platform’) could be through a comparative analysis of previous ‘quasi-fora’. The research proved very productive, but the results (discussed in the Paris annual conference) showed that such developments required institutional conditions far beyond the possibilities of a NoE.

The third one dealt with evolving policy rationales supporting public intervention. Two central points were highlighted: the analysis of effective policy developments, and the changing environment to innovation deployment. The first aspect was pushed by the recognition of a discrepancy between normative approaches to policies (based upon theory development, e.g. market vs. system failures) and empirical studies on the formation of effective policies. This drove to a the development of a set of seminars/workshops further exploring this idea. This has driven EPOM coordinators to propose an analysis of effective policies as an articulation of two different rationales: knowledge production policy rationales and governance policy rationales. The second fact – the rapid globalisation of RDI activities of large firms – drove to a second questioning: the GLOBPOL workshop reviewed the ability of ‘local’ governments to face and accompany ‘global’ players, and examined shifts in both rationales (e.g. the anchor tenant hypothesis) and instruments. This drove to a special issue of the JTT and the discussion of a policy framework discussed at the Pisa conference.

The fourth one dealt with innovation in collective goods and the role of ‘targeted’ innovation processes in the overall innovation capability of a country (speaking of a ‘public engine to innovation’). Activities here have focused on the largest source of R&D public spending in OECD countries, defence R&D. The Innomil project has gathered scholars from both sides of the Atlantic, mixing specialists of innovation systems with specialists of military R&D in successive workshops, giving rise to a very large review book to be published in 2008 by E. Elgar, to a special issue of JTT as well to a FP7 foresight project due to start in 2009.

The fifth Governance challenge questioned the general applicability of lessons learnt in OECD countries to other countries, asking in particular whether lessons learnt from these countries apply to ‘catch-up countries’ (to take the wording of an on-going project gathering evolutionary economists). As with knowledge dynamics, we chose to focus a first exploration on the least developed countries in Africa. Africa Prime drove us to consider that the answer might not be positive (or only partly positive) and that this required specific developments, which had to be done, first and foremost by our African colleagues (there are at least 4 well developed doctoral programmes on related issues). We thus proposed to the EC to support the development of a counterpart of Prime in Africa, Prime Africa, which was not considered as corresponding to an enlargement of Prime and thus not supported. We still consider that the results, debated since within UNESCO, are worth consideration.

Finally, policy implementation was a last and important feature, though not considered as a central challenge. Practice has told us that we have underplayed the importance of nurturing a continuous reflection on implementation issues. We thus supported a small review action on classical intermediaries, and in particular funding agencies (WIOP). This action did not deliver what we expected, but its work has been fully incorporated into the ERA dynamics project and the reflections it has generated are at the core of a new project selected by the ERC. We also supported a workshop and a book on evaluation systems, and the handbook of technology foresight has been published in the Elgar Prime collection. Similarly it has been considered important to support the production of the first handbook on innovation policies (and their co-evolution with innovation dynamics and systems, IP Co-evolution).