STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT EVALUATION OF U.S. INNOVATION POLICY: OPERATIONALIZING THE LIFEG FRAMEWORK
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
This study examines U.S. innovation policy through the lens of strategic management by developing and operationalizing the LIFEG Framework (Likhota Innovation Policy Effectiveness and Governance Framework) as an evaluative model for assessing the strategic management coherence of national innovation systems. Existing approaches often analyze innovation policy through isolated indicators, such as public R&D funding, institutional structures, patent activity, or commercialization outcomes, while providing limited tools for evaluating how strategic priorities, governance mechanisms, support instruments, and economic outcomes are managed as an integrated system. The proposed framework integrates five dimensions: institutional governance, public support mechanisms, commercialization capacity, strategic technological priorities, and economic performance. The study applies a mixed-method approach combining theoretical analysis with empirical assessment based on publicly available U.S. and international data, including federal R&D obligations, national R&D expenditures, R&D intensity, patent activity, agency-level strategic concentration, and comparative international innovation indicators. The findings show that the effectiveness of U.S. innovation policy depends not only on the scale of funding or individual policy instruments, but on the quality of strategic management across governance structures, support mechanisms, commercialization processes, technological priorities, and economic outcomes. The article contributes to innovation management and public administration research by introducing an operational framework for evaluating policy coherence within complex national innovation systems.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
strategic management; innovation management; innovation policy; innovation governance; U.S. innovation system; policy evaluation; R&D management; commercialization capacity; technological priorities; economic performance; LIFEG Framework
2. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. Pinter Publishers.
3. Likhota, O. V. (2025a). Evolution of state regulation of innovation activity in the USA. Intellect XXI, 2, 5–8. https://doi.org/10.32782/2415-8801/2025-2.1
4. Likhota, O. V. (2025b). Government bodies and agencies responsible for regulating innovation in the USA. Sustainable Development of Economy, 2(53), 150–154. https://doi.org/10.32782/2308-1988/2025-53-20
5. Likhota, O. V. (2025c). Innovation activity in the USA: The role of the state in technology development. Scientific Bulletin of Poltava University of Economics and Trade, 2(116), 43–48. https://doi.org/10.37734/2409-6873-2025-2-6
6. Likhota, O. V. (2025d). Intellectual property policy in the USA and its impact on innovation. Efektyvna Ekonomika, 4. https://doi.org/10.32702/2307-2105.2025.4.32
7. Likhota, O. V. (2025e). The relationship between innovation policy and economic development in the USA. Business Navigator, 2(79), 301–304. https://doi.org/10.32782/business-navigator.79-49
8. Lundvall, B.-Å. (Ed.). (2010). National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Anthem Press.
9. Mazzucato, M. (2013). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. Anthem Press.
10. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). (2026a). U.S. R&D totaled $937 billion in 2023; estimate for 2024 indicates further increase to $993 billion. U.S. National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf26314
11. National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). (2026b). Federal R&D obligations increased 4.4% in FY 2024; most agencies estimate declines in FY 2025. U.S. National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf26317
12. National Science Board. (2025). Science and Engineering Indicators 2025: Discovery: R&D activity and research publications. National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20257
13. Nelson, R. R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford University Press.
14. OECD. (2024). Main Science and Technology Indicators. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/main-science-and-technology-indicators.html
15. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle. Harvard University Press.
16. United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). (2024). U.S. patent activity calendar years 1790 to the present. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.htm
17. World Bank. (2024). World Development Indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
18. Intellectual Property Owners Association & Harrity Analytics. (2025). Top 300 organizations granted U.S. patents in 2024. https://ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2024-Top-300-Patent-Owners-List.pdf
19. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2025). IP Facts and Figures 2025. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-943-2025-en-wipo-ip-facts-and-figures-2025.pdf
20. PitchBook & National Venture Capital Association (NVCA). (2026). Q1 2026 PitchBook-NVCA Venture Monitor. https://nvca.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Q1-2026-PitchBook-NVCA-Venture-Monitor.pdf
21. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (2026). CHIPS for America. https://www.nist.gov/chips