Fostering industry-science cooperation through public funding: Differences between universities and public research centres

Journal of Technology Transfer

Volumn 37, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 676-695

  Teirlinck, Peter ^a   Spithoven, André ^b  

^a HOGESCHOOL UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL   (Belgium)

^b VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Firm behaviour; Industry science relations; Public funding; Research cooperation

Indexed keywords

FINANCE;

BUSINESS ENTERPRISE; COMMERCIALISATION; FIRM BEHAVIOUR; PUBLIC FUNDING; REGIONAL GOVERNMENT; RESEARCH COOPERATION; RESEARCH ORIENTATIONS; SCIENCE RESEARCH;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

EID: 84866279675     PISSN: 08929912     EISSN: 15737047     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10961-010-9205-4     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Aschhoff, B., Fier, A., & Fier, H. (2006). Detecting behavioural additionality: An empirical study on the impact of public R& D funding on firm's cooperative behaviour in Germany. ZEW Discussion Paper 06-037.
2. Autio, E., Hameri, A. H., & Vuola, O. (2004). A framework of industrial knowledge spillovers in big-science centers. Research Policy, 33(1), 107-126.
3. Autio, E., Kanninen, S., & Gustafsson, R. (2008). First- and second-order additionality and learning outcomes in collaborative R& D programs. Research Policy, 37, 59-76.
4. Bacchiocchi, E., & Montobbio, F. (2009). Knowledge diffusion from university and public research. A comparison between US, Japan and Europe using patent citations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(2), 169-181.
5. Beise, M., & Stahl, H. (1999). Public research and industrial innovations in Germany. Research Policy, 28, 397-422.
6. Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Diederen, B., Lokshin, B., & Veugelers, R. (2004). Heterogeneity in R& D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22, 1237-1263.
7. Bessant, J., & Rush, H. (1995). Building bridges for innovation: The role of consultants in technology transfer. Research Policy, 24, 97-114.
8. Boden, R., Cox, D., Georghiou, L., & Barker, K. (2001). Administrative reform of United Kingdom Government research establishments: Case studies of new organisational forms. In D. Cox, P. Gummett, & K. Barker (Eds.), Government laboratories. Transition and transformation (pp. 77-96). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
9. Bozeman, B. (1994). The cooperative technology paradigm: An evaluation of US government laboratories' technology transfer activities. Policy Studies Journal, 22, 322-327.
10. Bruce, M., & Morris, B. (1998). In-house, outsourced or a mixed approach to design. In M. Bruce, & B. Jevnaker (Eds.), Management of design alliances: Sustaining competitive advantage (pp. 39-69). Chichester: Wiley.
11. Buisseret, T., Cameron, H., & Georghiou, L. (1995). What difference does it make? Additionality in the public support of R& D in large firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 10(4/5/6), 587-600.
12. Busom, I., & Fernandez-Ribas, A. (2004). Firm strategies in R& D: Cooperation and participation in R& D programs. Working Paper 04-05, Deparment d'Economia Applicada, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.
13. Busom, I., & Fernandez-Ribas, A. (2005). The impact of participation in R& D programs on R& D partnerships. WIFO Working Paper no 251.
14. Capron, H., Cincera, M., & Dumont, M. (2000). The institutional profile. In H. Capron, & W. Meeusen (Eds.), The national innovation system of Belgium (pp. 43-69). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
15. Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2002). R& D cooperation and spillovers: Some empirical evidence from Belgium. American Economic Review, 92, 1169-1184.
16. CFS/STAT. (2007). www.belspo.be. Accessed December 9, 2008.
17. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation. The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
18. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Mustar, P. (2009). Behavioural additionality of R& D subsidies: A learning perspective. Research Policy, 38, 1517-1533.
19. European Commission. (2003). Third European Report on science & technology indicators, towards a knowledge-based economy. Brussels: European Commission.
20. European Commission. (2008). A more research-intensive and integrated European research area. Luxemburg: European Commission.
21. Coombs, R., & Georghiou, L. (2002). A new industrial ecology. Science, 296(5567), 471.
22. Dasgupta, P., & David, P. (1994). Towards a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487-521.
23. Defazio, D., Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program. Research Policy, 38(2), 293-305.
24. Egeln, J., Gottschalk, A., & Rammer, C. (2004). Location decisions of spin-offs from public research institutions. Industry and Innovation, 11(3), 207-223.
25. Falk, R. (2007). Measuring the effects of public support schemes on firms' innovation activities: Survey evidence from Austria. Research Policy, 36(5), 665-679.
26. Georghiou, L. (2002). Additionality and impact of R& D subsidies. IWT Studies, 40, 57-64.
27. Georghiou, L., Clarysse, B., Steurs, G., Bilsen, V., & Larosse, J. (2004). Making the difference: The evaluation of behavioural additionality of R& D subsidies. IWT Studies, 48, 75.
28. Greene, W. H. (1996). Marginal effects in the bivariate probit model, Working Paper EC-96-11, June.
29. Huber, G. (1991). Organizational learning: the contributing process and the literatures. Organisation Science, 2, 88-105.
30. Lundvall, B. (1992). National systems of innovation. Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers.
31. Martin, S., & Scott, J. (2000). The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation. Research Policy, 29, 437-447.
32. Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F. (2003). Cooperative R& D: Why and with whom? An integrated framework analysis. Research Policy, 32, 1481-1499.
33. Mohnen, P., & Hoareau, C. (2003). What type of enterprise forges close links with universities and government labs? Evidence from CIS2. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24, 133-145.
34. Muldur, U., Corvers, F., Delanghe, H., Dratwa, J., Heimberger, D., Sloan, B., et al. (2006). A new deal for an effective European research policy: The design and impacts of the 7th framework programme. Dordrecht: Springer.
35. Nauwelaers, C. (2004). De instellingen en het beleid inzake Wetenschap, Technologie en Innovatie in België, Belgian Report on Science, Technology and Innovation. Brussels: Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs.
36. Nauwelaers, C. (2009). Policy mixes for r& d in Europe. A study commissioned by the European Commission, directorate general for research. Brussels: European Commission.
37. OECD. (2001). Innovative networks: Co-operation in national innovation systems. Paris: OECD.
38. OECD. (2002a). Benchmarking industry-science relations. Paris: OECD.
39. OECD. (2002b). Frascati manual. Paris: OECD.
40. OECD. (2006). Oslo manual. Paris: OECD.
41. Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns for technological change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343-373.
42. Polt, W., & Psarra, F. (2006). Behavioural additionality of the EU's 5th framework programme. In OECD (Ed.), Government R& D funding and company behaviour. Paris: OECD.
43. Schibany, A., & Schartinger, D. (2001). Interactions between Universities and Enterprises in Austria: An empirical analysis at the micro and sector levels. In OECD (Ed.), Innovative networks: Co-operation in national innovation systems (pp. 235-252). Paris: OECD.
44. Soete, L. (2007). Eindrapport: Expertgroep voor de Doorlichting van het Vlaams Innovatie-Instrumentarium. Maastricht.
45. Spithoven, A. (2007). Kennisproductie in België. Analyse van de O& O-Activiteiten in de Non-Profitsector. Brussel: Federaal Wetenschapsbeleid.
46. Tether, B. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why? An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31(6), 947-967.
47. Tether, B. S., & Tajar, A. (2008). Beyond industry-university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base. Research Policy, 37(6-7), 1079-1095.
48. Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (1997). Integrating technological, market and organisational change. Chichester: Wiley.
49. van Helleputte, J., & Reid, A. (2004). Tackling the paradox: Can attaining global research excellence be compatible with local technology development? R& D Management, 34(1), 33-44.