The evolution of innovation paradigms and their influence on research, technological development and innovation policy instruments

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

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 333-359

  Boekholt, Patries ^a  

^a Technopolis Group Austria   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84890737395     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9781849804424.00022     Document Type: Chapter

References (47)

1. Adams, J., Eric, P. and Jeffrey, L. (2003), ‘The influence of federal laboratory R&D on industrial research’, Rensselaer working papers in economics, Number 0301.
2. Aho Group (2006), Creating an Innovative Europe (20 January 2006), http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/action/2006_ahogroup_en.htm.
3. Arnold E. (2007), ‘Governing the knowledge infrastructure in an innovation systems world’, paper for the Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC.
4. Arnold, E., Allinson, R., Muscio, A. and Sowden, P. (2004), Making Best Use of Technological Knowledge: A Study of the Absorptive Capacity of Irish SMEs, Brighton: Technopolis.
5. Arrow, K. (1962), ‘Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention’, in R. Nelson (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
6. Autio, E., Kanninen, S. and Wicksteed, B. (2003), ‘Targeted technology programmes: a conceptual evaluation’, report 2003/13, TEKES, Helsinki.
7. Boekholt, P. (1996), ‘Financing innovation in the post subsidy era: public support mechanisms to mobilise finance for innovation’ International Journal of Technology Management, 12 (7-8), 760-786.
8. Boekholt, P., Arnold, E. and Heide, M. de (2007), ‘The use and effectiveness of programmatic policies, some examples and evidence from around the world’, Ministry of Economic Affairs Research Series, The Hague.
9. Boekholt, P., Arnold, E. and Deuten, J. (2004), ‘The role of innovation policy agencies in the Finnish, Swedish and Flemish innovation systems’, report for the Dutch Innovation Platform, Technopolis, Amsterdam.
10. Bush, V. (1945), Science: The Endless Frontier, A Report to the President by Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, July.
11. Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. (1990) ‘Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1), 128-152.
12. Cooke, E, Boekholt, P. and Todtling, F. (2000), The Governance of Innovation in Europe: Regional Perspectives on Global Competitiveness, London, UK and New York, USA: Pinter.
13. Dosi, G. (1982), ‘Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change’, Research Policy, 11 (3), 147-162.
14. Edler J., et al. (2005), ‘Innovation and public procurement: review of issues at stake’, Final Report, Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe.
15. Edler, J. and Boekholt, P. (2000), ‘Internationalisierungsstrategien in der Wissenschafts- und Forschungspolitik: Best Practices im Internationales Vergleich’, Study for BMBF, ISI-Fraunhofer and Technopolis, Karlsruhe.
16. Edquist, C. (ed.) (1997), Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, London, UK and New York, USA: Routledge.
17. Ergas, H. (1986), ‘Does technology policy matter?’, CEPS papers No. 29, Centre for European Studies, Brussels.
18. European Commission (2006a), Lisbon Progress Report.
19. European Commission (2006b), European Innovation Progress Report, Trend Chart 2006, European Commission, DG Enterprise.
20. European Commission (2003), Raising EU R&D Intensity, Report by an Independent Expert Group, Brussels: European Commission.
21. European Commission, DG Research (2002), ‘Benchmarking national research policies: the impact of RTD on competitiveness and employment (IRCE)’, A STRATA-ETAN Expert Group Report, Brussels.
22. European Commission (1995), Green Paper on Innovation, Brussels.
23. Freeman, C. (1987), Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan, London, UK and New York, USA: Pinter.
24. Gassier H., Wolfgang, P. and Rammer, C. (2006), ‘Schwerpunktsetzungen in der Forschungs- und Technologiepolitik — eine Analyse der Paradigmenwechsel seit 1945’, Österreichische Zeitschrift fur Politikwissenschaft (ÖZP), 35 (1), 7-23.
25. Göktepe, D. and Etzkowitz, H. (2005), ‘Towards an assisted linear model of innovation: an exploratory study of technology transfer offices in the USA’, Conference paper presented at the Triple Helix 5 Conference, Paper A183, 18-21, May 2005, Turin.
26. Hauknes, J. and Nordgren, L. (1999), ‘Economic rationales of government involvement in innovation and the supply of innovation related services’, STEP report R-08, Oslo.
27. Hippel, E. von (1998), The Sources of Innovation, Oxford, UK and New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
28. Kline, S. and Rosenberg, N. (1986), ‘An overview of innovation’, in R. Landau and N. Rosenberg (eds), The Positive Sum Strategy, Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, pp. 275-355.
29. Lengrand & Associés, PREST, ANRT (2002), ‘Innovation tomorrow, innovation policy and the regulatory framework: making innovation an integral part of the broader structural agenda’, report for the European Commission, DG Enterprise, October.
30. Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London, UK and New York, USA: Pinter.
31. Massey, D., Quintas, P. and Wield, D. (1992), High-Tech Fantasies: Science Parks in Society Science and Space, London, UK and New York, USA: Routledge.
32. Mowery, D. (2005), ‘The Bayh-Dole act and high-tech entrepreneurship in U.S. universities, egg, chicken or something else?’ in G. Libecap, ‘University entrepreneurship and technology transfer: process, design, an intellectual property’, Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth, 16, 39-68.
33. Mowery, D. and Rosenberg, N. (1979), ‘The influence of market demand upon innovation: a critical review of some recent studies’, Research Policy, 8 (2), 102-153.
34. Nelson, R. (1959), ‘The simple economics of basic scientific research’, Journal of Political Economy, 67 (3), 297-306.
35. Nelson, R. and Winter, S. (1977), ‘In search of useful theory of innovation’, Research Policy, 6 (1), 36-76.
36. OECD (2002), Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, Paris: OECD.
37. OECD (2005), The Governance of Innovation Systems: Synthesis Report, Paris: OECD Publishers.
38. Porter, M. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, London, UK and New York, USA, Macmillan.
39. Rogers, E. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, Vol. 4, New York: The Free Press.
40. Rothwell, R. and Dodgson, M. (1992), ‘European technology policy evolution: convergence towards SMEs and regional technology transfer’, Technovation, 12 (4), 223-238.
41. Rothwell, R. and Zegveld, W (1985), Reindustrialization and Technology, New York: Armonk.
42. Saxcnian, A. (1996), Regional Advantage, Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128, Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
43. Schmookler, J. (1966), Invention and Economic Growth, Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
44. Smith, K. (1997), ‘Economic infrastructures and innovation systems’, in C. Edquist (ed.), Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, London, UK and New York, USA: Routledge.
45. Smits, R. and Kuhlmann, S. (2004), ‘The rise of systemic instruments’, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1 (1-2), 4-32.
46. Stokes, D. (1997), Pasteur's Quadrant, Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
47. Utterback, J. (1974), ‘Innovation in industry and the diffusion of technology’, Science, 183 (4125), 620-626.