Missions will undoubtedly remain in some form. Based on structured exchanges between mission policymakers and researchers, and the data collected already, it is clear that there will be no need for a complete mission reset. While undoubtedly changing, this context is not entirely new to missions:
Most missions were already serving the competitiveness agenda. The OECD study on missions for net zero has shown that 70% of missions aiming to reduce CO2 emissions also had explicit economic objectives, such as creating jobs or supporting industries.
Many missions had characteristics of “critical technology missions”. Few missions followed an open and non-prescriptive approach whereby they “pick problems, not solutions”. In that regard, missions had already made their “pragmatic turn”: in the face of difficulties associated with broad missions (e.g. diluted leadership, fuzzy objectives and strategic agendas, weak co-ordination, passive portfolio management, distance to public and private stakeholders), missions have become narrower, trying to solve problems in a pre-defined group of solutions (hydrogen, electric mobility, off-shore wind, etc.) with the goal of demonstrating the added value of systemic policies on more specific challenges, and to learn and expand or replicate on this basis.
As for defence and dual use, missions originated to a great extent from these areas. These missions were mainly of the “accelerator type” (challenge-based, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency-inspired initiatives) at the time, but the experience from the past period can feed into a reflection to make technological missions in this area more systemic to better co-ordinate the support to dual-use innovations.
At the same time, mission-oriented policies are adapting to this current policy context. First, complex societal challenges such as climate change, ageing and various health issues will become even more prominent in the years to come. Addressing these challenges requires co-ordinated collective action, which may not always explicitly be called missions but likely will use the MOIP principles (i.e., ambitious goals, coordinated governance, and a systemic policy mix). In this regard, while some countries seem to be leaving the mission scene, others are entering or re-entering it. Countries like Estonia and Thailand are considering adopting the mission approach. The United Kingdom has deployed a series of MOIPs since 2017 and recently announced five government mission areas (e.g., related to housing, hospital backlogs and clean power), which it is now ramping up work to implement – including through the new R&D Missions Accelerator Programme.
Secondly, the mission-way of working is increasingly being used to drive competitiveness and technological outcomes – returning to the original use of missions (sometimes referred to as “moonshots”) coming out of World War II. While the United States has terminated the DOE Energy Earthshots, it has announced 26 Genesis Missions, which will use AI, quantum technologies and the world’s most powerful supercomputers to solve some of the hardest challenges related to energy innovation. Korea’s National Strategic Technology Policy is a flagship programme that aims to aims to support strategically important technologies from the perspective of the economy, diplomacy, security, and new industry creation. While there may not be any additional support of the EU Missions in Horizon Europe after 2030, the European Commission has announced that it will establish technology Moonshots as instruments of the new European Competitiveness Fund, which will likely draw on its experience with missions.1
Third, various facets of the approach will remain as they are embodied in some policymakers and managers, processes, and structures. For instance, new governance bodies can continue to create more coherence within and across organisations – regardless of the mission goals. One potential legacy of the mission approach consists in their streamlining in the governance of entire national innovation systems, to improve their ability to set priorities, align various actors’ plans and enable policy co-operation. Conversely, other dimensions, such as private sector engagement and innovation in novel funding approaches, have been blind spots in many missions. The current focus on competitiveness and budget restrictions may help devote more attention to these matters in the future.
