ارائه چارچوب نهادی برای افزایش اثربخشی نقش دولت و بخش عمومی در ارتقای توان فناورانه تولیدات داخلی: مطالعه موردی قانون حداکثر استفاده از توان داخل

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیئت‌علمی پژوهشکده مطالعات فناوری، تهران، ایران.

2 دانشیار دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی (ره)، تهران، ایران.

3 دانشجوی دکترای مدیریت تکنولوژی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی (ره)، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

تجربه جهانی نشان می‌دهد که سیاست‌گذاران توسعه چه در کشورهای درحال‌توسعه و چه در کشورهای توسعه‌یافته همواره از اهرم بازار داخلی برای ارتقای توانمندی فناورانه کشورهای خود به‌عنوان یک ابزار سیاستی مهم و اثربخش استفاده نموده‌اند. در ایران نیز مهم‌ترین سیاست این حوزه، قانون حداکثر استفاده از توان داخل بوده است که علیرغم اصلاح نسخه اولیه در سال 1391 به نظر می‌رسد نتوانسته است نتایج اثربخشی برای اقتصاد کشور داشته باشد. در این پژوهش با بررسی پیشینه اجرای این قانون و قوانین و مقررات مرتبط و مصاحبه اولیه با کارشناسان، شش مقوله نهادی اصلی تأثیرگذار در توسعه توان داخل شناسایی و با استفاده از روش مصاحبه گروه متمرکز و تحلیل محتوای مباحثات و مصاحبه‌های انجام‌شده در شش جلسه، چارچوب نهادی توسعه توانمندی داخلی پیشنهاد شد. بر اساس تحلیل‌های انجام‌شده مهم‌ترین نواقص نهادی در کاهش اثربخشی اجرای قانون حداکثر استفاده از توان داخل، با مقولاتی نظیر اهمیت بیشتر ارجاع کامل کار به‌طرف ایرانی و الزام به ارتقای توانمندی فناورانه آن، نبود نظام تأمین مالی مقید، نبود تنظیم‌گری بخشی متناسب با اهداف توسعه توانمندی و عدم استفاده دستگاه‌های اجرایی کشور از تجمیع تقاضای عمومی برای افزایش قدرت چانه‌زنی مرتبط است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Proposing an Institutional Framework to Increase the Effectiveness of Government and Public’s role in enhancing Technological Capacity of Internal Productions: A Case Study of the Maximal use of internal capabilities law

نویسندگان [English]

  • Meysam Narimani 1
  • Mahdi Elyasi 2
  • MohammadReza Attarpour 3
1 Faculty Member of Technology Research Institute, Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate professor of Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Phd Candidate of Technology management, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Global experience has shown that policymakers in both developing and developed countries have always used the leverage of the domestic market to enhance their country's technological capability as an important and effective policy instrument. In Iran, the most important policy in this area is the law of “maximal use of internal capabilities”, which despite the modification of the initial version in 2012, seems to have failed to have effectiveness for the economy of the country. In this study, by reviewing the history of the implementation of this law, related laws and regulations, and initial interview with experts, six main institutional categories were identified. Using the method of focus group and analyzing the content of the discussions and interviews conducted in six sessions, the institutional framework for increasing effectiveness of this kind of laws was proposed. According to the analysis, the most important institutional deficiencies in reducing the effectiveness of the law, were some issues like: the importance of a full project to Iranian companies and forcing them to improve its technological capability, the lack of a system of financing, the lack of sectoral innovation policy and regulation and lack of aggregation of public demand for increasing bargaining power.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Institutional Analysis
  • public procurement
  • technological capability
  • law of maximum use of internal power
  • focus group

Acheampong, T., Ashong, M. and Svanikier, V.C., 2016. An assessment of local-content policies in oil and gas producing countries. The Journal of World Energy Law & Business, 9(4), pp.282-302.

Anderson, G. and Arsenault, N., 2005. Fundamentals of educational research. Routledge.

Arrowsmith, S., 2003. Transparency in government procurement: The objectives of regulation and the boundaries of the World Trade Organization. Journal of World Trade, 37(2), pp.283-303.

Blind, K., 2012. The influence of regulations on innovation: A quantitative assessment for OECD countries. Research Policy, 41(2), pp.391-400.

Campbell, J.W., 2017. Public Procurement Policy in South Korea: Approaches to Sustainable Development and Anti-Corruption. In The Experience of Democracy and Bureaucracy in South Korea (pp. 159-179). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Krueger, R.A., 2014. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage publications.

Asiago, B., 2017. Rules of Engagement: A Review of Regulatory Instruments Designed to Promote and Secure Local Content Requirements in the Oil and Gas Sector. Resources, 6(3), p.46.

Denscombe, M., 2014. The good research guide: for small-scale social research projects. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Edler, J. and Georghiou, L., 2007. Public procurement and innovation—Resurrecting the demand side. Research policy, 36(7), pp.949-963.

Edquist, C., 2015. Innovation-related public procurement as a demand-oriented innovation policy instrument (No. 2015/28). Lund University, CIRCLE-Center for Innovation, Research and Competences in the Learning Economy.

Edquist, C. and Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J.M., 2012. Public Procurement for Innovation as mission-oriented innovation policy. Research policy, 41(10), pp.1757-1769.

Erridge, A., 2007. Public procurement, public value and the Northern Ireland unemployment pilot project. Public Administration, 85(4), pp.1023-1043.

Evenett, S.J., 2004. International disciplines on government procurement: A review of economic analyses and their implications.

Fenster, G., 2003. Multilateral Talks on Transparency in Government Procurement.

Flynn, A., 2018. Investigating the implementation of SME-friendly policy in public procurement. Policy Studies, 39(4), pp.422-443.

Georghiou, L., Edler, J., Uyarra, E. and Yeow, J., 2014. Policy instruments for public procurement of innovation: Choice, design and assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 86, pp.1-12.

Kale, D. and Little, S., 2007. From imitation to innovation: The evolution of R&D capabilities and learning processes in the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(5), pp.589-609.

Kattel, R. and Lember, V., 2010. Public procurement as an industrial policy tool: an option for developing countries?. Journal of public procurement, 10(3), pp.368-404.

Keulemans, S. and Van de Walle, S., 2017. Cost-effectiveness, domestic favouritism and sustainability in public procurement: A comparative study of public preferences. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 30(4), pp.328-341.

Khan, M.E. and Manderson, L., 1992. Focus groups in tropical diseases research. Health policy and planning, 7(1), pp.56-66.

Khor, M., 2003. Mainstreaming development in trade and finance: a key to global partnership. Development Policy Journal, 3, pp.127-150.

Korinek, J. and Ramdoo, I., 2017. Local content policies in mineral-exporting countries.

Lee, T.J., 2004. Technological learning by national R&D: the case of Korea in CANDU-type nuclear fuel. Technovation, 24(4), pp.287-297.

Morettini, S., 2011. Public procurement and secondary policies in EU and global administrative law. In Global Administrative Law and EU Administrative Law (pp. 187-209). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Mu, Q. and Lee, K., 2005. Knowledge diffusion, market segmentation and technological catch-up: The case of the telecommunication industry in China. Research policy, 34(6), pp.759-783.

Naegelen, F. and Mougeot, M., 1998. Discriminatory public procurement policy and cost reduction incentives. Journal of Public Economics, 67(3), pp.349-367.

Oecd, G.O.V., 2017. Government at a Glance. Organization For Economic.

Oecd, G.O.V. 2016. The economic impact of local content requirements. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/tad/policynotes/economic-impact-local-content-requirements.pdf

Oecd, G.O.V, OECD in Figures, OECD, Paris.

Patton, M.Q., 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, inc.

Preuss, L., 2011. On the contribution of public procurement to entrepreneurship and small business policy. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(9-10), pp.787-814.

Rainey, H. G. 2014. Understanding and managing public organization (5th edEd.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; Pfeiffer Imprints, Wiley.

Raymond, J., 2008. Benchmarking in public procurement. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 15(6), pp.782-793.

Ruttan, V.W., 2006. Is war necessary for economic growth?:? militaryMilitary procurement and technology development. Oxford University Press.

Singh, A., 2002. Competition and competition policy in emerging markets: international and developmental dimensions. London: Edward Elgar.

Ssennoga, F., 2006. Examining discriminatory procurement practices in developing countries. Journal of Public Procurement, 6(3), pp.218-249.

Walker, H., Miemczyk, J., Johnsen, T. and Spencer, R., 2012. Sustainable procurement: Past, present and future.

Waluszewski, A., Baraldi, E. and Ciabuschi, F., 2018. Increase Development and Decrease Use! Innovation Controversies Caused by Antimicrobial Resistance. In Controversies in Healthcare Innovation (pp. 309-339). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Wint, A.G., 1998. The role of government in enhancing the competitiveness of developing economies: Selective functional intervention in the Caribbean. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 11(4), pp.281-299.

ابراهیمی, ن. قاسمی مقدم, س. 1397. بررسی الزامات قانونی استفاده از توان داخل در صنعت بالادستی نفت‌وگاز. پژوهش حقوق عمومی. 20(59), 64-96.

بی‌تعب، ع. یقطین، ع. حسینی، م. اصغری، ا. مامی غفاری، اب. روستاآزاد، س. یقطین، م، 1389، ملزومات افزایش حجم ساخت داخل در پروژه‌ها. چاپ اول، تهران: نشر راهدان.