This analysis reveals how STI-centric policies marginalise incremental innovation in Azerbaijan's agriculture and logistics sectors, suggesting reforms are needed.
Innovation policies in post-Soviet economies often prioritise technology-oriented R&D infrastructures while neglecting the production capabilities that sustain incremental learning and adaptation. Yet the mechanisms leading to this outcome are not theorised in the literature. This paper explains how such a selective focus becomes institutionalised through STI-centric policy myopia, a configuration that narrows policy attention to visible, codifiable, and globally recognisable indicators. Using Azerbaijan as an illustrative case, the study draws on policy documents, media and social-media narratives, and a structured survey of senior officials to trace three reinforcing processes: circumscribed policy discourse, which limits the vocabulary through which innovation can be imagined; indicator-driven tunnel vision, which prioritises metrics and global rankings over capability-deepening reforms; and accretive institutional layering, which adds STI-compatible instruments on top of unreformed organisational cores, gradually locking the system into symbolic, high-visibility pathways. Together, these processes stabilise a reform trajectory in which STI-compatible models appear self-evident, while doing–using–interacting (DUI) modes, despite their relevance in sectors such as agriculture, logistics, and processing, remain peripheral to policy design. Recognising this mechanism clarifies why capability-deepening trajectories fail to materialise even when DUI practices exist in the economy, and it sharpens analytical expectations about reform patterns in developing and post-Soviet systems. The paper therefore offers a conceptual lens for understanding the reproduction of STI-oriented policy agendas and for analysing when and how alternative innovation imaginaries might gain institutional traction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Muradzada et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: