Introduction 

Public policies have numerous definitions, approaches and ideas. For this reason, they have been treated as a multidisciplinary field of study, since public policies, in the end, represent, in the words of Professor Maria Paula Dallari Bucci, a program of governmental action that results from a set of legally regulated processes – electoral process, planning process, government process, budgetary process, legislative process, administrative process, judicial process – aiming to coordinate the means available to the State and private activities, for the achievement of socially relevant and politically determined objectives [1].

It is clear from Maria Paula Bucci's definition that, in order to achieve desirable results, public policies have legal, economic, administrative, political, sociological, and historical dimensions. For this very reason, their study has transcended political science to find support in other areas of knowledge, such as law or economics.

When shifting to the study of specific fields within public policy, the need for a multidisciplinary approach increases significantly. Discussing public education policy impacts discussions inherent to pedagogy. Debating public health policies necessarily requires including aspects of medicine, pharmacy, and other fields of knowledge. For this reason, any discussions related to public policies on industrial innovation demand specific analyses regarding aspects of science, technology, and innovation.

It is also important to highlight that the study of public policies is comprehensive and needs to follow a certain methodology; otherwise, one will arrive at ineffective results that do not reflect the reality in question. Thus, the study of public policies has been following a methodology called the public policy cycle , which fundamentally functions as an organizer of ideas, so that the stages are more easily identified, and which helps actors to create comparative benchmarks for heterogeneous cases, as Leonardo Secchi states [2].

The public policy cycle and the challenges of its evaluation.

The public policy cycle methodology, in a very brief summary, involves several stages. Despite the different approaches of the authors, almost all of them converge on the idea that it is necessary to: (i) identify a problem; (ii) include it in the agenda of problems to be addressed; (iii) formulate solutions to the problem; (iv) implement the decision; and finally (v) evaluate the implemented solution, in order to understand if this solution was able to solve the problem, and thus, be able to (vi) terminate the public policy.

It is noted, in this context, that evaluation is one of the great challenges for the implementation of efficient and effective public policies. It is not simple to understand how public policy will be evaluated. Almost 40 years have passed, but in the words of Figueiredo and Figueiredo (1986), to evaluate is to assign value, to determine whether things are good or bad [3]. To this end, it is necessary to establish evaluation criteria to assess why one policy is preferable to another. The relevance of a policy should be determined from its connection with some principle of human well-being. Thus, evaluation will always have a complex and controversial character.

Jannuzzi, in turn, provides a specific definition of evaluation, highlighting that it is “ the set of technical procedures to produce information and knowledge, from an interdisciplinary perspective, for the ex-ante design, implementation and ex-post validation of social programs and projects, (...), with the purpose of guaranteeing (...) effectiveness, (...) efficiency, and (...) efficiency [4]. It is noted that the idea of ​​evaluation needs to encompass a series of aspects of the program, in a multidisciplinary approach, and that it is constant, taking into account theoretical aspects, aspects of the manager's accumulated experience, cost aspects, among others. It is not merely academic research.

From the definitions provided, it is clear that evaluating a public policy would be simpler if it had clear results, goals, and objectives. But how can this be done in the context of an industrial innovation policy? The entire concept of an innovation policy runs counter to that of a traditional public policy.

One of the leading experts on public procurement and innovation in Brazil, André Rauen, demonstrates that innovation policies – including industrial ones – differ from other public policies in five fundamental aspects, namely: (i) the concepts are not clear and consolidated; (ii) the indirect and unforeseen impacts resulting from the intervention may be greater than those initially planned and direct; (iii) the instruments only influence the agents (companies, research institutes and researchers), thus the policy always acts indirectly and the final decision depends on market suitability ; (iv) high complexity and multiple cause-and-effect relationships inherent in the innovation process; and (v) it operates in a context of high information asymmetry between planners (policy makers) and executors [5].

The stark reality, in this case, is that evaluation is usually the most complicated stage of the cycle, since there are not always clear parameters to determine the success of public policy. Regarding innovation, the task is even more arduous, since innovation does not seek to directly solve a problem, but rather to bring about indirect impacts that promote technological development. 

The importance of public policies for industrial innovation.

However, despite the difficulties observed, Brazil cannot do without public policies for industrial innovation. Industrial policy is an essential part of a country's development, and it is well known that this development is crucial for establishing the foundations for wealth generation and the consequent improvement in the quality of life of its population, since it is industrial structural transformation that, in fact, produces economic development in a country [6]. 

Industrial transformation leads to a significant increase in the complexity of the economy, as well as a significant increase in productivity, invariably leading to an improvement in people's quality of life and an improvement in the distribution of income among the population. And for an industrial policy to achieve its results, part of it must be focused on innovation.

The relevance of innovation policies to industry is evident when considering the six missions of the New Industry Brazil program, a government initiative that seeks to unify Brazilian industrial policy. In all six missions, innovation is a key element for achieving effective results. From technological agro-industrial chains (Mission 1) to defense technologies (Mission 6), innovation is one of the main pillars of the NIB.

Instruments and mechanisms for evaluating and improving industrial innovation policies.

The federal government has mechanisms for evaluating public policies, such as the Practical Guide to Ex Post Analysis , created by the Civil House of the Presidency of the Republic in 2018, [7]. The document aims to offer public managers, scholars of the subject, control bodies, and anyone interested in evaluating public policies, instruments and mechanisms for evaluation.

The guide is divided into several types of evaluation: (i) executive; (ii) design; (iii) implementation; (iv) public policy governance; (v) results; (vi) impact; (vii) economic; and (vii) efficiency. Note that different aspects of public policy evaluation are taken into consideration. It is also noted that each type of evaluation has a case study, but none of them deals with public innovation policy, highlighting the difficulty in this area. 

Given this, and considering the difficulty in creating a consistent evaluation for innovation policies, and given that a "normal" evaluation, along the lines of government manuals, may not be effective in truly meeting the needs of the evaluation, it is necessary to seek alternatives. 

Thus, considering the peculiarities of innovation policies, it is important that such policies be evaluated from different perspectives, so that the evaluations can be validated independently. Jannuzzi presents four specific evaluation formats, each taking into account the needs, advantages, and disadvantages: (i) evaluative studies; (ii) evaluation research; (iii) meta-evaluations; and (iv) evaluation summary reports. It is important to highlight that André Rauen cites meta-evaluation as a potentially successful evaluation for innovation policies.

The closing thought

The challenge is great and urgent. Brazil needs to advance its industrial policy as it has been doing through the New Industry Brazil program, but to do so, it needs to properly evaluate its policies in order to adjust them when necessary. Considering the imperative innovation policies within the industrial policy process, a correct evaluation is even more fundamental. 

In this context, it is feasible to use the solutions proposed by Jannuzzi, especially meta-evaluation, as cited by Rauen. However, it is essential to find more methodologically robust approaches, since meta-evaluations can indicate misleading results, considering negative externalities of the process. It is fundamental that, even though they are distinct, public policies for industrial innovation be evaluated with methodological rigor so that they effectively fulfill their objectives.

The absence or deficiency in the evaluation of public innovation policies compromises their results. Without data proving the effectiveness of innovation in solving problems, public managers face difficulties in integrating more innovation policies into the government agenda. This results in scarce innovative initiatives, lacking logical coherence and, worse, without a joint plan that enables innovative achievements.

It is essential that Brazil prioritizes the evaluation of its industrial innovation policies in order to avoid the risk of becoming isolated on the global stage. To this end, it is fundamental to establish clear mechanisms, guidelines, and structures dedicated to evaluating public innovation policies. In this way, it will be possible to build a robust legal framework that effectively drives innovation in the country.

References

[1] BUCCI, Maria Paula Dallari (ed.). Public Policies: reflections on the legal concept . São Paulo: Saraiva, 2006.

[2] SECCHI, Leonardo. Public policies: concepts, analysis schemes, practical cases. São Paulo: Cengage Learning, 2012.

[3] FIGUEIREDO, Marcus and FIGUEIREDO, Argelina C. “ Political Evaluation and Evaluation of Policies: A Theoretical Framework ”, Revista Fundação João Pinheiro: 108-129. 1986.

[4] JANNUZZI, P. de M. (2014). Evaluation of social programs: concepts and references of those who carry it out. Estudos Em Avaliação Educacional , 25 (58), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.18222/eae255820142916

[5] RAUEN, André Tortato. Challenges of evaluation in innovation policies in Brazil. Revista do Serviço Público – RSP, v. 64, n. 4, p. 427-445. Oct-2013. Available at http://seer.enap.gov.br/index.php/RSP/article/view/131/131. Accessed on 11/09/2025.

[6] GALA, Paulo; RONCAGLIA, André. Brazil, a society that does not learn: new perspectives for discussing science, technology and innovation . Rev. Cadernos de Campo: Araraquara, n. 27, p. 39-57; Jul./Dec. 2019. Available at: https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/cadernos/article/view/13732/9062. Accessed on 11/09/2025.

[7] Practical guide to ex post analysis. Available at https://www.gov.br/casacivil/pt-br/assuntos/downloads/guiaexpost.pdf/view. Accessed on 11/09/2025.