Innovations in European and US innovation policy

Shapira, Philip; Klein, Hans; Kuhlmann, Stefan

doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(00)00161-x

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Th e governance of technological entrepreneurship in Western Europe appeared to be distinctively stimulated by a strong government response to the steadier shift of a postindustrial economy, which was additionally strengthened by adherence to NIS theory (Georghiou …a combination of industry incentives and local interests on the fertile entrepreneurship soil of the United States has yielded the most eff ective and competitive governance model of science parks and technology incubators across the world. Giesecke 2000;Goldfarb and Henrekson 2003;Shapira, Klein, and Kuhlmann 2001). Th e enormous growth rate of science parks and business incubators in Europe, identifi ed in many empirical studies (Giesecke 2000;Komninos 1997;Storey and Tether 1998;Sutherland 2005), manifests a policy-driven catch-up strategy whereby European countries have and are striving to acquire the benefi ts achieved in the United States by using similar tools.…”

Section: Signifi Cant Features Of Western Experiencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing Technological Entrepreneurship in China and the West

Stough

Nijkamp³

2009

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:China's effort in the past two decades to develop technological entrepreneurship by means of establishing science parks and business incubators is unique in terms of both its large scale and the speed with which this has been achieved. This paper attempts to contribute on the understanding of China's technological entrepreneurship promotion programs by positioning their policies and practice against an international context where the governance model appears to show much variation. Distinctive features identified for China after a broad comparison, however, draw attention to two major discrepancies between policy discourse and practice: 1) contrary to the claims of central policy makers that science parks were established to help nurture capabilities in domestic corporations, it has becoming increasingly clear that foreign direct investment (FDI) is considered the key to their success; 2) instead of being embedded in the local milieu as an interface for R&D, industry and education, technology transfer and commercialization in business incubators still heavily rely on funds and subsidies from the central government, and thus barely contribute to local entrepreneurship development.

show abstract

Section: Signifi Cant Features Of Western Experiencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Governing Technological Entrepreneurship in China and the West

Stough

Nijkamp³

2009

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…EU), and global (Shapira et al, 2001;Perry & May, 2007;Laranja et al, 2008;Langfeldt et al, 2012);  the rise of 'new public management' with its demands for public accountability, e.g. in the form of performance indicators (Elzinga, 2010(Elzinga, & 2012Doern & Stoney, 2009a);  efforts to raise the level of public engagement -there have been growing demands for greater public involvement in issues relating to science and technology, in particular where there are historical sensitivities or an element of 'risk' is perceived to be involved (Jacob, 2005);  initiatives responding to 'Grand Challenges' -since these are global in nature and also cross-cut other traditional boundaries (e.g.…”

Section: From National To Multi-level Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

R&D policy instruments – a critical review of what we do and don’t know

Martin

2016

Industry and Innovation

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article (Accepted Version) http://sro.sussex.ac.uk Martin, Ben R (2016) R&D policy instruments -a critical review of what we do and don't know. Industry and Innovation, 23 (2). pp. 157-176. ISSN 1366157-176. ISSN -2716 This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/58671/ This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published version. Copyright and reuse:Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University.Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available.Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. R&D Policy Instruments -a Critical Review of What We Do and Don't Know AbstractIn recent years, the term 'policy instrument' has been used more frequently with regard to R&D policy and innovation policy. What does this term mean? Where did it come from? What do we know about it, both with regard to the general field of policy studies but also in the specific context of R&D policy? This article examines the development of the notion of policy instruments as part of a body of research known as 'policy design'. Over the last 50 years, there has been substantial progress in setting policy design on a more systematic basis, with the development of established concepts and analytical frameworks, including various taxonomies of policy instruments. However, with just a few exceptions, this body of research seems to have had little impact in the world of R&D policy. The paper reviews the literature on R&D policy instruments. It identifies a number of challenges for R&D policy instruments in the light of four transitions -the shift from linear to systemic thinking about R&D and innovation, the shift from national governments to multi-level governance, the shift from individual actors to collaborations and networks, and the shift from individual policies to policy mixes. It sets out a research agenda for the study of R&D policy instruments, before ending with a number of conclusions.

show abstract

“…Policy needs to redress its role in a more contextual form, where the objective is to generate a positive framework for innovators. Most European countries undertook the transition from the technology policy to the innovation policy paradigm in the mid-and late-1990s (Shapira et al 2001;Biegelbauer and Borrás 2003;OECD 2000). This is not to affirm that these countries are unidirectionally converging, since there are important differences as to how this transition has been undertaken, and how innovation policy instruments and goals are defined.…”

Section: Innovation Policy In the Knowledge-based Economymentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction

Borrás

2003

The Innovation Policy of the European Union

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Innovations in European and US innovation policy

Cited by 12 publications

References 2 publications

Governing Technological Entrepreneurship in China and the West

Governing Technological Entrepreneurship in China and the West

R&D policy instruments – a critical review of what we do and don’t know

Introduction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About