Comparative discussion

Throughout all studied countries, a shift has been noted towards more liberal politics, while especially the UK has been considerably right-winged since the ‘80s. An important spearhead in liberal policy making is reducing bureaucracy and accompanying legislation. The approach towards stimulation of innovation is largely dependent on the way market mechanisms are considered; the more market power is emphasized, the more passively policies are applied. Especially the northern countries, being in this case Denmark and Sweden, have a remarkably more socialistic system, resulting in a bigger and more interfering government. However, it is evident that this is strongly related to the extent to which parties collaborate; especially considering the relation between private and public parties. Even associations consist in Denmark and Sweden members of public as well a market origin, resulting in the so-called iron triangle between policy-making entities, market parties and public clients.

Although more and more initiatives are launched in collaborative efforts, for example associations represent in Germany, the Netherlands and the UK mostly marked parties in order to increase bargaining power towards the government. The amount of distrust between groups of actors is in the latter countries higher than in the more collaborative ones. The importance of collaboration for successful innovation in construction has been stressed out by piles of literature. Although competition provides incentives to offer better, cheaper and more reliable services and products, the project-oriented structure makes market parties reserved toward taking the risk of innovation. Accordingly, the more cooperative CIs seem to be more innovative.

Moreover, the way of policy making highly affects the suitability of policy mixtures. Sweden has, for example, a dedicated innovation agency (Vinnova), which is also occupied with construction innovation initiatives, while the construction innovation policy in most countries is highly fragmented. In the Netherlands, the CI has not one particular ministry, let alone agency, which is responsible for the entire sector. This is not strange, as being client, such as RWS, requires entirely different occupations than for example developing legislation for newly built homes. As a result, policy mixes are in general not particularly well-matched.

There are two different examples which came forward from this study that have solved this problem. First, Germany has presented its Neue HTS, which was developed as a well-balanced policy profile and was aimed at research and innovation in all sectors. The strategy is not very specific, which leaves space to the individual states to further shape the according policies. The second example is Vinnova, which centrally steers R&I strategies, policies and initiatives. The policies it offers are well-balanced and for every stage of the innovation process support is offered, be it financially as well as providing access to knowledge and expertise. Also network and clustering activities are included in which also construction is incorporated.

Regarding support to R&D and innovation, the Netherlands have in different ways been leaders. First of all, the WBSO is one of the first tax incentives for R&D activities. This example was followed by all other countries, each with its own design. Also the Innovatiebox was introduced several years later aimed at actual inventions, which was adopted in different other industries. A note, however, has to be placed on the fact that at least in the Netherlands, construction firms make in relation to their turnover less use of financial R&D support measures than its industrial counterparts. The reason is unknown, but several barriers have been distinguished in multiple reports that may indicate grounds, such as the small window of opportunity due to the project-oriented structure and supply-side

reluctance to embrace new products and processes. In order to make the CI innovate, other complementary policy measures are needed, which in most cases can be used complementary to the R&D support measures.

In recent years, the demand-driven innovation programs have become more popular. Classic examples are the issuing of prizes for the best innovations, but new, often procurement-oriented, measures have been implemented. In all countries, these measures have been applied, but the Scandinavian countries are leaders on several of these initiatives. User-driven Innovation is one of these Danish examples in which innovation is a significant part of procurement criteria. Also Challenge-Driven Innovation in Sweden and the SBIR and SBRI initiatives in respectively the Netherlands and the UK are excellent examples, all falling under the header of pre-commercial procurement. Next to these direct measures, also more indirect measures are introduced in the demand side. For example, the Dutch government has agreed on procuring 2.5% of the projects and projects aimed at innovative products or processes, from which more specifically the IIU emerged. The influence of European strategies, standardization efforts and regulation is applicable to all countries considered. However, some countries clearly develop their policy designs more in line with European initiatives then others. In the UK, barely parallels can be found in their national strategies, while for example the Neue HTS is highly woven into EU initiatives. Also Denmark and Sweden often follow the tendencies as presented by the EU and in many cases kick it up a notch, with for example the environmental and energy-related targets. The Dutch strategies are also often presented in line with EU strategies, although several targets affecting sustainability and according innovation were politically not lived up to.

The different strategies and measures all show different emphases to stimulating innovation in construction. Some of these measures are very effective and stimulate innovation to a great extent. However, this does not necessarily mean that implementation in another country is fruitful. The different structures have different cultural-historical backgrounds and the attitude to other groups of actors differ highly from country to country. For example, in Sweden, all construction companies pay a fixed amount to a general construction research council, which determines how the money gets spent on different innovation topics. A somewhat milder, but in a sense similar mechanism was used in the Netherlands. In culturally more liberal countries, companies would never agree to it, as it is unclear whether the companies reaps the rewards or the competition. Furthermore, the size of the company highly influences the way it is managed. For small countries, centralized policy-making is easier, with better balanced policy mixes as a result. However, centralized strategies such as the HTS in Germany, but also the newly presented Bouwagenda in the Netherlands are proper answers to this problem.