Demand-based innovation policy

The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy: An International Research Handbook

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 275-301

  Edler, Jakob ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863833224     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9781849804424.00020     Document Type: Chapter

References (61)

1. Aho, E., et al. (2006), ‘Creating an innovative Europe’, report of the Independent Expert Group on R&D and Innovation appointed following the Hampton Court Summit. Rapporteur: Luke Georghiou, January 2006.
2. BDL (2003), ‘The power of customers to drive innovation’, report to the European Commission, Brussels.
3. Beise, M. (2001), Lead Markets. Country Specific Success Factors of the Global Diffusion of Innovations, Heidelberg and Berlin: Physica-Verlag.
4. Beise, M., et al. (2003), ‘The emergence of lead markets for environmental innovations’, FFU report, 02-2003, Berlin.
5. Blind, K. (2006), ‘Regulation in nachfrageorientierte Innovationspolitik (Regulation in demand-oriented innovation policy)’, in J. Edler (ed.), Nachfrageorientierte Innovationspolitik: Benchmarking-Studie im Auftrag des Deutschen Bundestag, (Demand-oriented Innovation Policy. Benchmarking Study on behalf of the German Parliament), Karlsruhe and Berlin: pp. 277-289.
6. Blind, K., et al. (2004), ‘New products and services. Analysis of regulations shaping new markets’, www.cordis.lu/innovation-policy/studies/gen_studyii.htm.
7. BMBF (2006), ‘The High Tech Strategy for Germany’, Bonn and Berlin, www.bmbf, de/pub/bmbf_hts_en_kurz.pdf.
8. BMBF (2003), ‘Futur. Der deutsche Forschungsdialog’, Bonn, www.bmbf.de/pub/futur_eine_erste_bilanz.pdf.
9. BMU (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety) (2006), ‘Memorandum for a New Deal for the economy, environment and employment’, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Berlin.
10. Bozeman, B. (2000), ‘Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory’, Research Policy, 29 (4-5), 627-655.
11. Bradke, H., Cremer, C., Dreher, C., et al. (2007), ‘Developing an assessment framework to improve the efficiency of R&D and the market diffusion of energy technologies’, report for the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology, Karlsruhe.
12. Breloh, P. (2000), ‘Staadiche Förderung industrieller Innovation in der USA. Eine empirisch fundierte Analyse’, Wiesbaden: Darmstadt Technischer Universität.
13. CoC (Council on Competitiveness) (2004), ‘Innovate America. National innovation initiative report thriving in a world of challenge and Change’, Washington, DC.
14. Dalpe, R. (1994), ‘Effects of government procurement on industrial innovation’, Technology in Society, 16 (1), 65-83.
15. Dalpe, R., DeBresson, C. and Ciaoping, H. (1992), ‘The public sector as first user of innovations,’ Research Policy, 21 (3), 251-263.
16. DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) (2004), ‘Innovation report: competing in the global economy, the innovation challenge’, December 2004, London.
17. DTI/OGC (Department of Trade and Industry/Office of Government Commerce) (2003), ‘Increasing competition and improving long-term capacity planning in the government market place’, December 2003, London.
18. Ebersberger, B. (2007), ‘Nachfrageorientierte Innovationspolitik in den Niederlanden’ (Demand-oriented inovation policy in the Netherlands), in J. Edler (ed.), Nachfrageorientierte Innovationspolitik: Benchmarking-Studie im Auftrag des Deutschen Bundestag (Demand-oriented Innovation Policy. Benchmarking Study on behalf of the German Parliament), Karlsruhe and Berlin: pp. 84-96.
19. Edler, J. (ed.) (2007a), Nachfrageorientierte Innovationspolitik: Benchmarking-Studie im Auftrag des Deutschen Bundestag (Demand-oriented Innovation Policy. Benchmarking Study on behalf of the German Parliament), Karlsruhe and Berlin.
20. Edler, J. (2007b), ‘Nachfrageorientierte Innovationspolitik in den USA’ (Demand-oriented inovation policy in the USA), in J. Edler (ed.) (2007a), Nachfrageorientierte Innovationspolitik: Benchmarking-Studie im Auftrag des Deutschen Bundestag (Demand-oriented Innovation Policy. Benchmarking Study on behalf of the German Parliament), Karlsruhe and Berlin: pp. 130-150.
21. Edler, J. and Georghiou, L. (2007), ‘Public procurement and innovation: resurrecting the demand side’, Research Policy, 36 (7), 949-963.
22. Edler, J., Hommen, L., Papadokou, M., et al. (2005), ‘Innovation and public procurement, review of issues at stake’, Study for the European Commission, final report.
23. Edler, J., Joly, P., Kuhlmann, S., et al. (2006), ‘Understanding for a of strategic intelligence for research and innovation’, The PRIME Forum Research Project, Final report, Karlsruhe.
24. Edler, J., Kuhlmann, S. and Smits, R. (2003), ‘New governance for innovation. The need for horizontal and systematic policy coordination’, Fraunhofer ISI, 31 S. (2/2003) (Fraunhofer ISI Discussion Papers Innovation System and Policy Analysis No. 2/2003), Online, www.isi.fhg.de/publ/downloads/isio3ao4/new-governance.pdf (318 KB) (ISI-A-4-03), Karlsruhe.
25. Edquist, C. (1994), ‘Technology policy: the interaction between governments and markets’, in G. Aichholzer and G. Schienstock (eds), Technology Policy. Towards and Integration of Social and Ecological Concerns, Berlin, Germany and New York, USA: Walter de Gruyter; pp. 67-94.
26. Edquist, C. and Hommen, L. (2000), ‘Public technology procurement and innovation theory.’ in C. Edquist, et al. (eds), Public Technology Procurement and Innovation, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Boston, USA and London, UK: Kluwer, pp. 5-70.
27. Edquist, C., Hommen, L. and Tsipuri, L. (2000), Public Technology Procurement and Innovation, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Boston, USA and London, UK: Kluwer.
28. European Commission (2006), ‘Putting knowledge into practice, a broad-based innovation strategy for the EU’, COM (2006) 502 final, 13.9.2006, Brussels.
29. European Commission (2007), ‘Guide on dealing with innovative solutions in public procurement. 10 elements of good practice’, SEC (2007) 280, Brussels.
30. European Council (2006), ‘Decision of establishing a competitiveness and innovation framework programme (2007-2013)’, 26.09.2006, Brussels.
31. Gatignon, H. and Robertson, T.S. (1985), ‘A prepositional inventory for new diffusion research’, Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (4), 849.
32. Georghiou, L. (2007), ‘Demanding Innovation Lead markets, public procurement and innovation’, NESTA Provocation 02, February, London, www.nesta.org.uk/assets/pdf/deman dinginnovation_provocation_NESTA.pdf.
33. Georghiou, L., Amanatidou, E., Belitz, H., et al. (2003), ‘Raising EU R&D intensity. Improving the effectiveness of public support mechanisms for private sector research and development, direct measures report of an ETAN expert group’, 30.04.2003, Brussels.
34. Geroski, P. (1990), ‘Procurement policy as a tool of industrial policy’, International Review of Applied Economics, 4 (2), 182-198.
35. Gregersen, B. (1992), ‘The public sector as a pacer in national systems of innovation’, in B.-Ä. Lundvall (ed.), National Systems of Innovation. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London, UK and New York, USA: Pinter, pp. 129-145.
36. Hauff, V. (2003), ‘Nachhaltigkeit als Formel für politische Gestaltung’, Rede auf dem Jahreskongress des Rates für nachhaltige Entwicklung, 1.10.2003.
37. Hekkert, M., Suurs, R., Negro, S., Kuhlmann, S. and Smits, R. (2007), ‘Functions of innovation systems. A new approach for analysing technological change’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74 (4), 413-432.
38. Hippel, E. von (1986), ‘Lead users, a source of novel product concepts’, Management Science, 32 (7), 791-805.
39. IPTS (2003), ‘Public procurement and R&D. A JRC/IPTS-ESTO fast track working paper’, March 2003.
40. Jacob, K. and Jänicke, M. (2003), ‘Leadmärkte für Umweltinnovationen’, Politische Ökologie, 21 (August 2003), 19-21.
41. James, A. (2004): ‘U.S. defence R&D spending: an analysis of the impacts’, reporter’s report for the EURAB Working Group ERA Scope and Vision. EURAB 04.011, Manchester, www.europa.eu.int/comm/research/eurab/pdf/recommendationsio.pdf
42. Kok, W., et al. (2004), ‘Facing the challenge. The Lisbon strategy for growth and employment’, report from a High Level Group, November 2004, Luxembourg.
43. Lundvall, B.-Å. (ed.) (1992), National Systems of Innovation. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London, UK and New York, USA: Pinter.
44. Lundvall, B.-Å. (1988), ‘Technological change and economic theory: innovation as an interactive process. From user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation, in G. Dosi, et al. (eds), Technical Change and Economic Theory, London, UK and New York, USA: Pinter, pp. 349-369.
45. Meyer-Krahmer, F. (2004), ‘Vörreiter-märkte und innovation. Ein neuer ansatz der technologie und innovationspolitik’, in F. Steinmeier and M. Machnig (eds), Made in Germany 21. Innovationen für eine gerechte Zukunft, Hamburg: Hoffman und Campe, pp. 95-110.
46. Meyer-Krahmer, F. (1999), ‘Was bedeutet globalisierung für aufgaben und handlungsspielräume nationaler innovationspoliriken?’ in K. Grimmer, et al. (eds), Innovationspolitik in globalisierten Arenen. Neue Aufgaben für Forschung und Lehre, Opladen: Leske und Budrich, pp. 43-74.
47. Meyer-Krahmer, F. and Reger, G. (1997), ‘Konsequenzen veränderter industrieller F&E-strategien für die nationale forschungs- und technologiepolirik’, in A. Gerybadze, F. Meyer-Krahmer and G. Reger (eds), Globales Management von Forschung und Innovation, Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag, pp. 196-215.
48. Moors, E., Enzing, C., Giessen, A. van der and Smits, R. (2003), ‘User-producer interactions in functional genomics innovations’, Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 5 (2-3), 120-143.
49. Mowery, D. and Rosenberg, N. (1979), ‘The influence of market demand upon innovation. A critical review of some recent empirical studies’, Research Policy, 8 (2), pp. 102-153.
50. Neji, L. (1998), ‘Evaluation of Swedish market transformation programmes. Lecture at the ACEE summer study on energy efficiency in buildings’, Panel II.
51. NUTEK (1994), ‘Effective market influence: an effect chain analysis of NUTEK’s high frequency lightning campaign’, report R 1994:70, Stockholm.
52. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2003), ‘National procurement strategy for local government in England’, Local Government Procurement Team, October 2003, London.
53. Pavitt, K. (1971), The Conditions for Success in Technological Innovation, Paris: OECD Publishing.
54. PCAST (Presidents’ Council of Advisors on Science and Technology) (2004), ‘Sustaining the nation’s innovation ecosystem: maintaining the strength of our science and engineering capabilities’, Washington, DC.
55. Popper, S. and Wagner, C. (2002), ‘New foundations for growth: the U.S. innovation system. Today and tomorrow’, MR-1338.o-OSTP, RAND, Washington, DC.
56. Porter, M. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, London, UK and New York, USA: Macmillan.
57. Rothwell, R. and Zegveld, W. (1981), ‘Government regulations and innovation: industrial innovation and public policy’, in R. Rothwell and W. Zegveld (eds), Industrial Innovation and Public Policy, London: Greenwood Press, pp. 116-147.
58. Smits, R. (2002), ‘Innovation studies in the 21st century. Questions from a user’s perspective’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69 (9), 861-883.
59. Suvilehto, H.-M. (1997), ‘An evaluation of NUTEK’s programme for more efficient use of energy’, Final Report, National Board for Industrial and Technical Development, Stockholm.
60. Suvilehto, H.-M. and Overholm, E. (1998), ‘Swedish procurement and market activities: different design solutions on different markets’, presentation at the 1998 ACEEE Summer Study on energy efficiency in buildings.
61. Wilkinson, R., Georghiou, L. (ed.), Cave, J. (ed.), et al. (2005), ‘Public procurement for research and innovation’, report of an expert group, commissioned by the European Commission, Brussels.