Why mission-oriented innovation must be location-based

Governments around the world are increasingly turning to mission-oriented innovation policy to tackle some of the most pressing challenges of our time. From climate change and public health to digital transformation and sustainable mobility, missions are intended to provide clear, ambitious goals that mobilise the public and private sectors, encourage collaboration across sectors and accelerate innovation. 

Yet, despite this surge of interest, one critical dimension remains largely ignored: missions unfold in places. Although they are designed at national or supranational levels, their success depends on the locations where innovation happens, where institutions and firms operate and where communities experience both the challenges and the impacts of new technologies. 

Missions need local content to deliver impact

In a recent special issue of the Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, we examine the relationship between missions and place. Drawing on conceptual debates, historical insights and empirical evidence from Europe, the US, Japan, China and Latin America, we asked a simple question: can mission-oriented innovation policy (MOIP) deliver meaningful change if it does not account for the diversity of regional economies? The answer is that it cannot.

“A central insight emerging (from more than a dozen contributions from around the world to the special issue of the journal) is that effective missions require bold national vision but also careful coordination across multiple levels of governance and sensitivity to local conditions,” says an introductory paper in the special issue written by academic colleagues from Arizona State University, the Department of Land Economy at the University of Cambridge, the University of Manchester and myself. “The capacity to align national objectives with regional capabilities and institutional landscapes is crucial to translating ambition into impact.”

The long history of mission-driven innovation policy shows the power of place

Although mission-driven innovation policy is often presented as a modern response to societal challenges, its roots run deep. Historically, governments pursued missions long before the term existed: primarily to fight wars, gain territory and to kill people. Examples stretch from the Chinese imperial development of gunpowder arsenals to medieval Europe’s shipbuilding infrastructures – forms of state-led technological mobilisation that created lasting spillovers well beyond their original militaristic goals.

In the 20th century, modern missions emerged through vast scientific and technological programmes such as the Manhattan Project to build nuclear weapons and the Apollo Programme for space exploration. These Cold War initiatives relied on significant public investment, close co-ordination between government, universities and industry, and a clear national purpose. They delivered not only military and strategic objectives but also civilian breakthroughs, including semiconductors, GPS and the internet, reshaping regional economies in the process.

By the 1990s, policymakers recognised that these so-called moonshot-style missions could not simply be replicated to address new challenges such as climate change or sustainable mobility. Societal problems required broader involvement, more diverse policy tools and greater attention to demand-side dynamics. Top-down, technology-driven missions were insufficient, and innovation systems had to incorporate social and institutional considerations. Contemporary mission-oriented innovation policies therefore differ from their predecessors by targeting complex and wicked problems that cut across sectors and governance levels.

Why mission-oriented innovation policy faces ideological and practical critiques 

Mission-oriented innovation policy has its fierce critics. From an ideological perspective, some free-market economists fear that missions allow governments to pick winners or politicise innovation. Others question whether the state has the information or capacity to steer complex systems effectively. 

Practical critiques focus on implementation challenges. Missions can be poorly co-ordinated, inadequately implemented and weakly evaluated. Without careful design, they risk becoming slogans rather than strategies.  One serious concern, and the focus of our work, is that missions can be spatially blind, ignoring regional differences that shape whether and how policy goals are realised. This can undermine effectiveness and exacerbate inequalities.

Regional differences are key to how missions succeed

National missions depend on regional strength

Mission-oriented innovation policy offers a powerful way to direct innovation towards public purpose rather than solely private profit. But missions cannot succeed through national ambition alone. They require regional engagement, institutional capacity and place-focused design. Missions need places just as much as places may need missions.

As we say in the conclusion to our introduction to the special issue of the Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society: “A more granular, place-aware approach to both design and assessment is essential if mission oriented innovation policy is to realise its transformative promise. Without a better understanding of how missions succeed or falter in different regional settings, there is a risk that national ambitions will not translate into effective or sustainable local outcomes.”