Patarapong Intarakumnerd is Deputy Director of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Program and Professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS) in Tokyo, Japan. He is a regional editor and member of international editorial boards of several international journals relating to innovation management and policies. He has worked as an advisor/consultant for the World Bank, UNESCO, UNCTAD, OECD, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), German Development Institute, International Development Research Center of Canada, and Economic Research Institute of ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
A: The strength of this university is that it is a research university with research and teaching very much related. Professors here spend a lot of time on research, and findings from research will be converted to curriculum. Therefore, students can learn something very updated. In addition, most our classes are rather related to public policies. That is a distinctive characteristic of our university.
Most of professors at GRIPS including myself used to engage with policy directly or indirectly. Some of them used to be high-ranking government officials. Some used to work in public research organizations or government-related organizations. We have experiences in the field of policy making.
At GRIPS, we try integrate theory and practice together. We need both. Without a theory, Theories provide guidance for designing policies based on serious analysis. Practical policy experiences help policies be relevant and effective.
When you look at our program, you will see that it has different types of professors. Some of them are academy oriented, or research oriented. Some are more practical ones. We can offer both theoretical classes and practical policy classes. That is a good blend.
A: My main research topic is "science, technology and innovation policies in developing countries." We are looking at an issue of the national, regional and sectorial innovation systems in developing countries. Generally, the issue of science and technology innovation policy should not be examined only at the national level. But there are also other levels, such as the regional, local, and sectorial ones.
We are also looking at policy issues in the global context, because issues concerning science and technology and innovation these days are across national borders. So we need to have a comparative perspective.
One of the projects that I am working on is a two-year project, called "Analysis of Intermediary Organizations in East Asia's Innovation Systems Project". This is a study about the role of intermediaries. What we mean by intermediary is like a broker. A lot of policies happen not because of one single agency, but coordination across agencies. We need coordinators to make things happen.
For this research, I am particularly focusing on two types of organizations. One is a public research institute, and the other is a private industry association. I want to learn what kind of role that they play, and if there are differences between these two types of organizations.
Studying this, I focused on Taiwan, which is a more advanced country, and Thailand, which is a less advanced but catching up country. Are intermediaries in these two perform differently, why? I interviewed many organizations and compared them, for example in the food industry. In Thailand, they have food related public research institutes as well as food industry associations. In Taiwan, they also have more or less the same types of organizations, but they perform better than their counterparts in Thailand. So I tried to understand why.
I found that there are differences in terms of mission of the organizations. For example, one is trying to do everything, while one is more focused. There are also differences in terms of human resource within those organizations. That is why they have different performance.
I use this kind of result for my own teaching. I discuss about the role of intermediaries with my students. Why in some countries have such kinds of intermediaries? Why are some more effective than others? Because of my own research, I can be more confident about this kind of issue when I teach. This is an example of close relations between research and teaching.
One of the beauties that our program has is that we can make a comparison in classes, because our students are from many different countries and most of them are mid-carrier policy makers. They want to discuss with other colleagues. They learn from others, and we professors also can learn from them as well. That is mutual learning.
A: For example, I have worked a project leader for research funded by ERIA (Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia). Every year we conduct studies on innovation activities in Asian countries, including surveys of firms innovation activities in five different locations: Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam (Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi). For the past ten years, we carried out such surveys. On top of that, we have case studies focusing on selected industries, for example, automobile and electronics.
For each year, we had project meetings with national teams from Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, and other countries. I was the one who laid out a framework and wrote an executive summary, conclusion and policy implications. We submit a report to ERIA every year. This is the clear example of how we conduct collaborative research across the borders.
A: I think these days we are talking about how science and technology improve quality of life, or contribute to the well-being of people. Science, technology and innovation polices have to be more people focused. That is my main motivation to research.
In order to be people focused, we have to engage with stake holders. We cannot just have a bureaucrat formulating policies out of nowhere. Policy making should be based at interaction of all stake holders, for example, private companies, universities, local government or communities. I got this idea in my university days, and I felt certain of it from my own work experience.
I used to be a government official cum policy researcher for eight years in Thailand. Later I worked for the largest public research institute in Thailand, called National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA). During the time, I participated in the planning processes of basic plans for science, technology and innovation, as well as worked on other important policy issues. I also understood the importance of collaborating with other government agencies and private sectors.
So I brought this kind of experience to GRIPS. When I teach in my class, I mention not only a theoretical aspect but also a practical aspect. That is because I know that what kind of policy is working and what kind of policy is not working, and why.
A: Research has to link with policy. We have to deliver the result to policy makers, and hopefully by doing that, we have some real changes happen. That is what we want to do. We want to deliver real change.
From my own experience, I understand that policy makers in a developing county have a lot of limitations. They want to see changes, but it is very difficult to make it happen. So I thought that the best way to make changes is to groom the new generation of policy makers, who have a good understanding of both theory and practice. So that is why I became a professor. I wanted to educate them, especially the mid-carrier officials who have some experiences but at the same time still have a long future. That is the mission of this program too.
This program involves both Japanese and foreign policy makers. They can understand each other, benchmark their policy together, and have good human connections. The alumni network is also active, and collaborations among the alumni from different countries have actually happened. I think that our students are going to make a lot of contribution in the future.
Books
Journal articles and book chapters
