Competitiveness in research and development: Comparisons and performance

Competitiveness in Research and Development: Comparisons and Performance

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 1-257

  Török, Ádám ^a   Borsi, Balázs ^b   Telcs, András ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PANNONIA   (Hungary)

^b GKI Gazdasagkutato Zrt   (Hungary)

^c BUDAPEST UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMICS   (Hungary)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85087952436     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4337/9781845428273     Document Type: Book

References (321)

1. Abbott, Roderick, Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, Ulrich Immenga, Alexis Jacquemin, Frédéric Jenny, François Lamoureux, Jean-François Marchipont, Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann and Jean-François Pons (1995), ‘Competition policy in the new trade order: strengthening international competition and rules’, report by the group of experts, manuscript, Brussels.
2. Academy of Finland (2000), The State and the Quality of Scientific Research in Finland, A Review of Scientific Research and Its Environment in the Late 1990s, publications of the Academy of Finland, 7/00.
3. Acs, Zoltan J., Luc Anselin and Attila Varga (2002), ‘Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge’, Research Policy, 31, pp. 1069-85.
4. Acs, Zoltan J., László Szerb, József Ulbert and Attila Varga (2002), GEM 2001 Magyarország (Global Entrepreneurship Monitoring 2001 Hungary), University of Baltimore/University of Pécs.
5. Agenda 2000 (1997), Agenda 2000: The Opinion of the European Commission on Hungary’s Application to the European Union, Budapest: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
6. Ahrweiler, Petra, Simone De Jong and Paul Windrum (2002), ‘Evaluating innovation networks’, in Pyka-Küppers (eds) Innovation Networks. Theory and Practice, Cheltenham UK and Northampton US: Edward Elgar, pp. 197-214.
7. Aide à la Décision Économique SA, in association with the University College London School of Slavonics and European Studies and the Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (2001), Innovation Policy Issues in Six Candidate Countries: The Challenges, European Commission Directorate-General for Enterprise EUR 17036, 189 pages.
8. Amable, Bruno and Robert Boyer (2001), ‘Europe’s system(s) of innovation’, in Pascal Petit and Luc Soete (eds), Technology and the Future of European Employment, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, US: Edward Elgar, pp. 425-50.
9. Balassa, Bela (1965), ‘Trade liberalization and “revealed” comparative advantage’, Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 32 (2), pp. 99-123.
10. Balassa, Bela (1977), ‘A Stages Approach to Comparative Advantage’, World Bank staff working paper 256, May.
11. Balázs, Péter (1996), Az Európai Unió külkapcsolatai és Magyarország [The EU’s International Relations and Hungary], Budapest: KJK.
12. Balconi, M., S. Breschi and F. Lissoni (2004), ‘Networks of inventors and the role of academia: an exploration of Italian patent data’, Research Policy, 33, pp. 127-45.
13. Balogh, Thomas (1955), ‘Factor intensities of American foreign trade and technical progress’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 37 (4), pp. 425-27.
14. Balogh, Tamás (2001), ‘A szakértoi bírálattól a portfólió-elemzésig. Az alkalmazott kutatás-fejlesztés értékelése’ [From expert evaluation to portfolio analysis. An assessment of applied research and development], Magyar Tudomány. 3, pp. 328-39.
15. Balogh, Tamás (2002), ‘Hol állunk Európában? A magyarországi kutatásfejlesztés helyzete’ [Where do we stand in Europe? The situation of R&D in Hungary], Magyar Tudomány, 3, pp. 361-70.
16. Balogh, Tamás (2004), ‘A magyarországi innováció helyzete az új Európában’ [The situation of innovation in Hungary in the new Europe], Európai Tükör, 2, May, pp. 45-60.
17. Barabási, Albert-László (2003), Behálózva. A hálózatok új tudománya [Linked. The New Science of Networks], Budapest: Magyar Könyvklub Publishers.
18. Baumol, William, Joseph Panzar and Robert Willig (1982), Contestable Markets and the Theory of Industry Structure, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
19. Berényi, Dénes (2001), ‘A magyar tudomány a világversenyben’ [Hungarian science in world competition], Magyar Tudomány, 2, 217.
20. Biegelbauer, Peter S. (2000), 130 Years of Catching Up with the West: A Comparative Perspective on Hungarian Industry, Science and Technology Policy-making since Industrialization, Contemporary Trends in European Social Sciences, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
21. Bork, Robert H. (1993), The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself, New York: Free Press (1st edition 1978).
22. Borsi, Balázs, Katalin Dévai, Gábor Papanek and Howard Rush (eds) (2004) The RECORD Manual: Benchmarking Innovative Research Organisations in European Accession Countries, Budapest University of Technology and Economics and European Commission, Brussels, O EUR 21238, 75 pages.
23. Borsi, Balázs and András Telcs (2004), ‘A K+F tevékenység nemzetközi összehasonlítása országstatisztikák alapján’ [An international comparison of R&D based on national statistics], Közgazdasági Szemle, 51, February, pp. 153-72.
24. Bowden, Roger J. (1983), ‘The conceptual basis of empirical studies of trade in manufactured commodities: a constructive critique’, Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 3, pp. 209-34.
25. Brander, James A. and Barbara Spencer (1983), ‘International R&D rivalry and industrial strategy’, Review of Economic Studies, 50, pp. 707-22.
26. Brandsma, Andries, Nikolaus Thumm and Thübke, Alexander (2002), Economic Transformation. European Commission Directorate General JRC, Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Enlargement Futures Series, 01/2. final report, June.
27. Braun, Ernest and Wolfgang Polt (1988), ‘High technology and competitiveness: an Austrian perspective’, in Christopher Freeman and Bengt-Åke Lundvall (eds), Small Countries Facing the Technological Revolution, London and New York: Pinter Publishers, pp. 203-25.
28. Braun, Tibor, Wolfgang Glänzel, Éva Kovács-Németh and Zsuzsa Szabadi-Peresztegi (2002), ‘Magyarország helyzete a természettudományi alapkutatás világában: tudománymetriai tájkép a második évezred végén’ [Hungary’s Situation in the World of Basic Scientific Research: A Scientometric Landscape at the End of the Second Millennium], Magyar Tudomány, 7, pp. 935-45.
29. Braun, Tibor, Zsuzsa Szabadi-Peresztegi and Éva Kovács-Németh (2003), ‘About Abels and similar international awards for ranked lists of awardees as science indicators of national merit in mathematics’, Scientometrics, 56 (2), pp. 161-8.
30. Bruton, Henry J. (1998), ‘A reconsideration of import substitution’, Journal of Economic Literature, 36, June, pp. 903-36.
31. Buzás, Norbert (2003), ‘Organizational elements of knowledge transfer in Hungary: towards a functional system of innovation’, in Imre Lengyel (ed.) Knowledge Transfer, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, and Regional Development, Szeg ed: JATEPress, pp. 32-46.
32. Caminal, Ramon and Xavier Vives (1996), ‘Why market-shares matter: an information-based theory’, RAND Journal of Economics 27 (2), Summer, pp. 221-39.
33. Cantner, Uwe and Andreas Pyka (2001), ‘Classifying technology policy from an evolutionary perspective’, Research Policy, 30, pp. 759-75.
34. Carlsson, Bo et al. (2002), ‘Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues’, Research Policy, 31, pp. 233-45.
35. Carlton, Dennis W. and Jeffrey M. Perloff (2000), Modern Industrial Organization, 3rd edition, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
36. Caves, Richard E. (1964), American Industry: Structure, Conduct, Performance, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
37. Caves, Richard E. (1982), ‘Multinational enterprise and economic analysis’, Cambridge Surveys of Economic Literature, Cambridge University Press.
38. Caves, Richard E. and Ronald W. Jones (1985), World Trade and Payments: An Introduction, Boston, MA and Toronto: Little, Brown & Company.
39. Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper and E. Rhodes (1978), ‘Measuring the efficiency of decision making units’, European Journal of Operational Research, 2 (6), pp. 429-44.
40. Chikán, Attila (1998), Vállalatgazdaságtan [Economics of the Firm], Budapest: Aula Publishers.
41. Clark, Woodrow W., Jr. (2002), ‘Intrapreneurship: commercialization of research and development by firms: the United States case’, in A. Varga and L. Szerb (eds), Innovation, Entrepreneurship, Regions and Economic Development: International Experiences and Hungarian Challenges, Pécs: University of Pécs. pp. 107-21.
42. Coase, Ronald W. (1937), ‘The nature of the firm’, Economica, 4, pp. 386-405.
43. Cohen, Stephen S. (1994), ‘Speaking freely: foreign affairs’, July-August. www.foreignaffairs.org/19940701faresponse5134/none/the-fight-overcompetitiveness.html
44. Commissione (V) Bilancio, Tesoro e Programmazione del Parlamento Italiano (2000), Documento conclusivo dell’indagine conoscitiva sulla competitività del sistema-paese di fronte alle sfide della moneta unica e della globalizzazione dei mercati, June 20, Rome.
45. Coriat, Benjamin and Fabienne Orsi (2002), ‘Establishing a new intellectual property rights regime in the United States: origins, content and problems’, Research Policy, 31, pp. 1491-507.
46. Cosh, Andy, Kirsty Hughes and Bob Rowthorn (1993), ‘The competitive role of UK manufacturing industry 1979-2003', in Kirsty Hughes (ed.), The Future of UK Competitiveness and the Role of Industrial Policy, London: Policy Studies Institute, pp. 7-27.
47. Costa, Ionara and Sérgio Robles Reis de Queiroz (2002), ‘Foreign direct investment and technological capabilities in Brazilian industry’, Research Policy, 31, pp. 1431-43.
48. Coupé, Tom (2003), ‘Revealed performances: worldwide rankings of economists and economics departments’, Journal of the European Economic Association, 1, pp. 1309-45.
49. Coupé, Tom (2004), ‘What do we know about ourselves? On the economics of economics’, Kyklos, vol. 57-Fasc. 2, pp. 197-216.
50. Cournot, Augustin (1838), Recherches sur les principes mathématiques de la théorie des richesses, reprinted in English (1897) Research into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth, London: Macmillan.
51. Csörgo, Sándor, Lajos Rónyai and Imre Ruzsa (2003), ‘Mi mennyi?' [What is how much?] Magyar Tudomány, 48 (9), pp. 1174-79.
52. Czakó, Erzsébet (2004), Miért versenyképes a versenyképesség?-a versenyképességi listák újdonságai [Why is competitiveness competitive? Innovations in the competitiveness lists], in Erzsébet Czakó, Imre Dobos and Anita Kohegyi (eds), Vállalati versenyképesség-logisztika-készletek [Company-level Competitiveness-Logistics-Inventories], essays in honour of the 60th birthday of Attila Chikán, Budapest University of Economics, Department of Business Economics, pp. 119-27.
53. Da Motta e Albuquerque, Eduardo (2000), ‘Domestic patents and developing countries: arguments for their study and data from Brasil (1980-1995)', Research Policy, 29, pp. 1047-60.
54. Dasgupta, P. and J. Stiglitz (1980), ‘Uncertainty, industrial structure and the speed of R&D’, Bell Journal of Economics, 11, pp. 1-28.
55. David, Paul A. et al. (2000), ‘Is public R&D a complement of substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence’, Research Policy, 29, pp. 497-529.
56. De Castro Eduardo Anselmo et al. (2000), ‘The triple helix model as the motor for creative use of telematics’, Research Policy, 29, pp. 193-203.
57. De Solla Price, Derek J. (1961), Science since Babylon, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
58. De Solla Price, Derek J. (1963), Little Science, Big Science, New York: Columbia University Press.
59. De Solla Price, Derek J. (1979), Kis tudomány-nagy tudomány (Little Science, Big Science), Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
60. Deli, Zsuzsa (2004), ‘The scoreboards of R&D activities in an international context’, Development and Finance, 2, pp. 32-41.
61. Devlin, Keith (1990), Mathematics: the New Golden Age, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
62. Dory, Tibor (2002), ‘Towards a regional innovation system: regional policy issues and problems in the Central Transdanubian region’, in A. Varga and L. Szerb (eds) Innovation, Entrepreneurship Regions and Economic Development: International Experiences and Hungarian Challenges, Pécs: University of Pécs, pp. 247-64.
63. EPUB (2002), RTD Evaluation Toolbox. Socio-economic Evaluation of Public RTD Policies, IPTS-Joanneum Research.
64. Erdei, Tamás (2002), ‘A magyar bankok versenyképessége’ [The competitiveness of Hungarian banks], lecture at the conference, ‘Hungary at the Gate of the European Union’ organized by GKI Economic Research, Budapest, 13 November.
65. European Commission (1995), Green Paper on Innovation, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
66. European Commission (2002), ‘Competitiveness and benchmarking’, European Competitiveness Report 2002, commission staff working document (SEC(2002) 528), Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
67. European Commission (2003), A European Initiative for Growth. Investing in Networks and Knowledge for Growth and Jobs, final report to the European Council, Brussels, COM (2003) 690, 26.
68. European Commission (2004), Delivering Lisbon, Reforms for the Enlarged Union, final report from the Commission to the Spring European Council, Brussels, 21 January, COM(2004) 29.
69. European Commission (2001), European Competitiveness Report, Brussels: EC.
70. European Innovation Scoreboard (2003), ‘Indicators’, assessed 5 June, 2004 at http://trendchart.cordis.lu/scoreboard2003 /html/indicators/indicators.html.
71. EVCA (1999-2001), Yearbook, Zaventem: European Venture Capital Association.
72. Faber, Jan and Anneloes Barbara Hesen (2004), ‘Innovation capabilities of European nations: cross-national analyses of patents and sales of product innovations’, Research Policy, 33, pp. 193-207.
73. Färe, R., S. Grosskopf and C.A. Lowell (1994a), Production Frontiers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
74. Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, M. Norris and Z. Zhang (1994b), ‘Productivity growth, technical progress and efficiency changes in industrialised countries’, American Economic Review, 84, pp. 66-83.
75. Ferto, Imre and Lionel J. Hubbard (2002), ‘Megnyilvánuló komparatív elonyök és versenyképesség a magyar élelmiszer-gazdaságban’ [Revealed comparative advantages and competitiveness in the Hungarian food sector], Külgazdaság, 46, September, pp. 46-58.
76. Fisher, Irving (1925), ‘Our unstable dollar and the so-called business cycle’, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 20, pp. 179-202.
77. Fleischer, Holger (1997), ‘Mißbräuchliche Produktvorankündigungen im Monopolrecht-Lehren aus United States vs. Microsoft’, Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, 47, (3) (March), pp. 203-10.
78. Flor, M.L. and M.J. Oltra (2004), ‘Identification of innovating firms through technological innovation indicators: an application to the Spanish ceramic tile industry’, Research Policy, 33, pp. 323-36.
79. Freeman, Christopher (1988), ‘Technology gaps, international trade and the problems of smaller and less-developed countries’, in Christopher Freeman and Bengt-Åke Lundvall (eds), Small Countries Facing the Technological Revolution, London and New York: Pinter Publishers, pp. 67-84.
80. Freeman, Chris (2002), ‘Continental, national and sub-national innovation systems-complementarity and economic growth’, Research Policy, 31, pp. 191-211.
81. Freeman, Christopher and Bengt-Åke Lundvall (eds) (1988), Small Countries Facing the Technological Revolution, London and New York: Pinter Publishers.
82. Fudenberg, Drew and Jean Tirole (1991), Game Theory, Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
83. Fujita, Masahisa, Paul Krugman and Anthony J. Venables (1999), The Spatial Economy. Cities, Regions and International Trade, Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
84. Furman, Jeffrey L., Michael E. Porter and Scott Stern (2002), ‘The determinants of national innovative capacity’, Research Policy, 31, pp. 899-933.
85. Gavigan, James P., Mathias Ottitsch, Sami Mahroum (1999), Knowledge and Learning. Towards a Learning Europe, European Commission Directorate General JRC, Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Futures Programme no. 14, 81.
86. Giesecke, Susanne (2000), ‘The contrasting roles of government in the development of biotechnology industry in the US and Germany’, Research Policy, 29, 205-23.
87. Glänzel, Wolfgang, András Schubert and Tibor Braun (2002), ‘A relational chart approach to the world of basic research in twelve science fields at the end of the second millennium’, Scientometrics, 55 (3), pp. 335-48.
88. Glänzel, Wolfgang, András Schubert and Tibor Braun (2003), ‘Eggyel kevesebb’ [One less], Magyar Tudomány, 48 (9), pp. 1180-83.
89. Glänzel, W., M. Meyer, B. Schlemmer, M. du Plessis, B. Thijs, T. Magerman, K. Debackere and R. Veugelers, (2003), ‘Biotechnology-an analysis based on publications and patents’, Steunpunt O&O Statistieken K.U. Leuven, accessed November at http://www.steunpuntoos.be/biotech_b.html.
90. Glatz, Ferenc (1998), Tudománypolitika az ezredforduló Magyarországán [Science Policy in Hungary at the Turn of the Century], Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
91. Godin, Benoît (2003), ‘The emergence of S&T indicators: why did governments supplement statistics with indicators?' Research Policy, 32, pp. 679-91.
92. Goldberg, D.E. (1989), Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning, Menlo Park, NY: Addison-Wesley.
93. Gorzelak, Grzegorz, Éva Ehrlich, Lubomir Faltan and Michal Illgner (eds) (2001), Central Europe in Transition: Towards EU Membership, Regional Studies Association Polish Section, Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
94. Gregersen, Brigitte (1988), ‘Public sector participation in innovation systems’, in Christopher Freeman and Bengt-Åke Lundvall (eds) (1988), Small Countries Facing the Technological Revolution, London and New York: Pinter Publishers, pp. 262-77.
95. Griliches, Zvi (1990), ‘Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey’, Journal of Economic Literature, 28, December, pp. 1661-707.
96. Group of Lisbon (1995), Limits to Competition, Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
97. Grubel, H.G. and P.J. Lloyd (1995), Intra-Industry Trade, London: Macmillan Press.
98. Guellec, Dominique and Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (2001), ‘The internationalisation of technology analysed with patent data’, Research Policy, 30, pp. 1253-66.
99. Hadjimanolis, Athanasios and Keith Dickson (2001), ‘Development of national innovation policy in small developing countries: the case of Cyprus’, Research Policy, 30, pp. 805-17.
100. Hagedoorn, John and Myriam Cloodt (2003), ‘Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?', Research Policy, 32, pp. 1365-79.
101. Hara, Takuji (2003), Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry. The Process of Drug Discovery and Development. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
102. Hargittai, István (2001), The Road to Stockholm, Nobel Prizes, Science and Scientists, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
103. Hayashi, Takayuki (2003), ‘Effect of R&D programmes on the formation of university-industry-government networks: comparative analysis of Japanese R&D programmes’, Research Policy, 32, pp. 1421-42.
104. HEBC (Hungarian EU Enlargement Business Council) (2003), Célegyenesben. Magyarország sikeres integrációja. A Magyar EU Bovítési Üzleti Tanács ajánlásai. [Approaching the Target. Hungary’s Successful Integration to Europe, Recommendations of the Hungarian EU Enlargement Business Council], Budapest: HEBC.
105. Heller, Farkas (1947), Közgazdaságtan I. kötet, Elméleti közgazdaságtan. [Economics I. Theoretical Economics], Budapest: Institute for Higher Engineer Training.
106. Hicks, Diana et al. (2001), ‘The changing composition of innovative activity in the US: a portrait based on patent analysis’, Research Policy, 30, pp. 681-703.
107. Hirsch, Seev (1974), ‘Hypothesen über den Handel zwischen Entwicklungsund Industrieländern’, in H. Giersch and D. Haas (eds), Probleme der weltwirtschaftlichen Arbeitsteilung, Kiel: Institut für Weltwirtschaft, pp. 69-88.
108. Hirsch, Seev (1975), ‘The product cycle model of international trade’, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics (1).
109. Hirschman, Albert O. (1958), The Strategy of Economic Development, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
110. Hoffmeyer, E. (1958), ‘The Leontief Paradox critically examined’, Manchester School Review, May, pp. 160-75.
111. Horváth, Gyula (2001), ‘A magyar régiók és települések versenyképessége az európai gazdasági térben’ [The competitiveness of Hungarian regions in the European economic space], Tér és Társadalom, 2, pp. 203-31.
112. Hotelling, H. (1933), ‘Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 24, pp. 417-41, 498-520.
113. Hughes, Kirsty (1986), Exports and Technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
114. IMD (2003), The World Competitiveness Yearbook, Lausanne: IMD School of Management.
115. IMF (2000), World Economic Outlook October 2000, Focus on Transition Economies, IMF.
116. Information Society (1997), Information Society. The Green Paper on the Information Society in Portugal, Missâo para a Sociedade da Informaçâo no 87, Lisbon, May.
117. Inotai, András (1997), Útközben. Magyarország és az Európai Unió [On the Road. Hungary and the European Union] Budapest: Belvárosi Publishers.
118. Inotai, András (1999), Magyarország és a többi közép-és kelet-európai ország szerkezeti átalakulása a Németországba irányuló export tükrében [Structural Change in Hungary and in the Other Countries of Central and Eastern Europe as Reflected by Exports to Germany], Budapest: Institute for World Economics and OMFB.
119. Inoue, Ryuichiro, Hirohisa Kohama, Shujiro Urata (eds) (1993), Industrial Policy in East Asia, Tokyo: JETRO.
120. Intarakumnerd, Patarapong et al. (2002), ‘National innovational system in less successful developing countries: the case of Thailand’, Research Policy, 31, 1445-57.
121. Inzelt, Annamária (2002), ‘Restructuring and Financing R+D: New Partnerships’, in A. Varga and L. Szerb (eds), Innovation, Entrepreneurship, Regions and Economic Development: International Experiences and Hungarian Challenges, Pécs: University of Pécs. pp. 27-50.
122. IPTS (2001), Impact of Technological and Structural Change on Employment, Prospective Analysis 2020, Synthesis Report. European Commission Directorate General JRC, Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Report EUR 20131 EN, 47.
123. Jaffe, Adam B. (2000), ‘The US patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process’, Research Policy, 29, pp. 531-57.
124. James, Jeffrey (2000), ‘Trait-making for labour intensive technology in Sub-Saharan Africa’, Research Policy, 29, pp. 757-66.
125. Jiménez-Contreras, Evaristo, Félix de Moya Anegón and Emilio Delgado López-Cózar (2003), ‘The evolution of research activity in Spain. The impact of the National Commission for the Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEAI)', Research Policy, 32, pp. 123-42.
126. Johnson, Björn (1988), ‘An institutional approach to the small-country problem’, in Christopher Freeman and Bengt-Åke Lundvall (eds), Small Countries Facing the Technological Revolution, London and New York: Pinter Publishers, pp. 279-97.
127. Kaiser, Robert and Heiko Prange (2004), ‘The reconfiguration of national innovation systems: the example of German biotechnology’, Research Policy, 33, pp. 395-408.
128. Kaldor, Nicholas (1978), The Effect of Devaluations on Trade in Manufactures, London: Duckworth.
129. Karsai Judit (2002), ‘A kockázati toke részvétele az innováció finanszírozásában’ [The participation of venture capital in financing innovations], unpublished manuscript, University of Veszprém.
130. Katrak, Homi (2002), ‘Does economic liberalisation endanger indigenous technological developments? An anlysis of the Indian experience’, Research Policy, 31, pp. 19-30.
131. Katz, Jorge (2001), ‘Structural reforms and technological behaviour: the sources and nature of technological change in Latin America in the 1990s’, Research Policy, 30, pp. 1-19.
132. Keller, Wolfgang (2004), ‘International technology diffusion’, Journal of Economic Literature, 42, September, pp. 752-82.
133. Kim, Youngbae and Byungheon Lee (2002), ‘Patterns of technological learning among the strategic groups in the Korean electronic parts industry’, Research Policy, 31, pp. 543-67.
134. Kindleberger, Charles P. (1962), Foreign Trade and the National Economy, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
135. King, David A. (2004), ‘The scientific impact of nations’, Nature, 430, 15 July, pp. 311-16.
136. Kingston, William (2001), ‘Innovation needs patents reform’, Research Policy, 30, pp. 403-23.
137. Kiss, Ferenc, Iván Major and Pál Valentiny (2000), Információgazdaság és piacszabályozás [Information Economy and Market Regulation], Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
138. Koestler, Arthur (1959), The Sleepwalkers, London: Hutchinson.
139. Korah, Valentine (1997), An Introductory Guide to EC Competition Law and Practice, 6th edn, Oxford: Hart Publishing.
140. Kreis-Hoyer, Petra and Jutta Grünberg (2002), ‘Inter-Organizational Knowledge Networks: A Theoretical Foundation’, European Business School IMC working paper no 3, December.
141. Krugman, Paul (1994), ‘Competitiveness: a dangerous obsession’, Foreign Affairs, (2), pp. 28-44.
142. Krugman, Paul (1996), The Age of Diminished Expectations, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (1st edn 1994) revised and updated.
143. Krugman, Paul and Maurice Obstfeld (1991), International Economics: Theory and Policy, 2nd edition, New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
144. Krugman, Paul and Maurice Obstfeld (2000), International Economics: Theory and Practice, 5th edn, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
145. Kuklinvski, Antoni (2001), ‘Science and technology in Poland at the turn of the centuries’, G. Gorzelak et al. (eds), Central Europe in Transition: Towards EU Membership, Warsaw: Regional Studies Association Polish Section, Wydawnictwo Naukowe, pp. 224-34.
146. Kulikov, Ivan (2004), ‘The comparative assessment of telecommunications restructuring in Russia’, MA thesis, CEU Economics Department, Budapest.
147. Kühn, Kai-Uwe, Paul Seabright and Alasdair Smith (1992), Competition Policy Research: Where Do We Stand? CEPR occasional paper 8, London.
148. Küppers, Günter (2002), Complexity, Self-Organization and Innovation Networks: A New Theoretical Approach, in A. Pyka and G. Küppers (eds), Innovation Networks. Theory and Practice, Cheltenham UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 22-54.
149. Laband, David and Robert Tollison (2000), Scientific Collaboration, Journal of Political Economy, 108, pp. 632-62.
150. Laffont, Jean-Jacques and Jean Tirole (1993), A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
151. Lall, Sanjaya (2003), ‘Indicators of the relative importance of IPRs in developing countries’, Research Policy, 32, pp. 1657-80.
152. Landry, Réjean et al. (2001), ‘Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada’, Research Policy, 30, pp. 333-49.
153. Lankhuizen, Maureen (2000), ‘Shifts in foreign trade, competitiveness and growth potential: from Baltics to “Bal-techs”?' Research Policy, 29, pp. 9-29.
154. Lányi, Beatrix (2002), ‘A K+F nemzetközi versenykepéssége. Közép-európai OECD országok kutatási és fejlesztési tevékenységének értékelése [International competitiveness in R&D. The assessment of R&D in Central European OECD countries], working paper 22, University of Veszprém.
155. Lary, Hal B. (1968), Imports of Labor-Intensive Manufactures from Less Developed Countries, New York: National Bureau for Economic Research.
156. Laursen, Keld (2000), Trade Specialization, Technology and Economic Growth. Theory and Evidence from Advanced Countries, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
157. Lee, Keun and Chaisung Lim (2001), ‘Technological regimes, catching-up and leapfrogging: findings from the Korean industries’, Research Policy, 30, pp. 459-83.
158. Lembke, Johan (2002), Competition for Technological Leadership. EU Policy for High Technology, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
159. Lemola, Tarmo (2002), ‘Convergence of national science and technology policies: the case of Finland’, Research Policy, 31, pp. 1481-90.
160. Lengyel, Imre (2000), ‘A regionális versenyképességrol’ [On regional competitiveness], Közgazdasági Szemle, 12, pp. 962-87.
161. Lengyel, Imre (ed.) (2003), Knowledge Transfer, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, and Regional Development, Szeged: JATEPress, University of Szeged.
162. Leoncini, Ricardo and Sandro Montresor (2001), ‘The automobile technological systems: an empirical analysis of four European countries’, Research Policy, 30, pp. 1321-40.
163. Leontief, Wassily (1954), ‘Domestic production and foreign trade: the American capital position re-examined’, Economia Internazionale, 2.
164. Leontief, Wassily (1956), ‘Factor proportions and the structure of American trade: further theoretical and empirical analysis’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 38 (4) (November) pp. 386-407.
165. Lesourne, Jacques (ed.) (1979), Facing the Probable and Managing the Unpredictable. The Interfutures Report, Paris: OECD.
166. Leydesdorff, Loet (2000), ‘The triple helix: an evolutionary model of innovations’, Research Policy, 29, pp. 243-55.
167. Linder, Staffan Burenstam (1961), An Essay on Trade and Transformation, Stockholm: Handelshögskolan.
168. Lipczynski, John and John Wilson (2001), Industrial Organisation. A Theory of Competitive Markets, Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
169. Liu, Xiaohui and Chenggang Wang (2003), ‘Does foreign direct investment facilitate technological progress? Evidence from Chinese industries’, Research Policy, 32, pp. 945-53.
170. Liu, Xielin and Steven White (2001), ‘Comparing innovative systems: a framework and application to China’s transitional context’, Research Policy, 30, pp. 1091-114.
171. Lloyd, P.J. (1998), ‘Globalisation and competition policies’, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 134 (2), pp. 161-85.
172. Lotka, A.J. (1926), ‘The frequency distribution of scientific productivity’, Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 16, pp. 317-23.
173. Lundvall, Bengt-Åke and Peter Nielsen (1999), ‘Competition and transformation in the learning economy-illustrated by the Danish case’, Revue d’Économie Industrielle, (88) (2e trimestre) (numéro spécial: L’économie de la connaissance), pp. 67-90.
174. Lundvall, Bengt-Åke (ed.) (1992), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London: Pinter.
175. Major, Iván (2003), ‘What makes Hungarian SMEs perform poorly?' Acta Oeconomica, 53, 2, pp. 109-44.
176. Mani, Sunil (2002), Government, Innovation and Technology Policy. An International Comparative Analysis, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
177. Marcy, Gérard (1976), Économie internationale, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
178. Maskin, Eric and Jean Tirole (1988), ‘A theory of dynamic oligopoly I. Overview and quantity competition with large fixed costs’, Econometrica, 56 (3), pp. 549-69, quoted in Tirole (1988) pp. 340-46.
179. Mathews, John A. (2002), ‘The origins and dynamics of Taiwan’s R&D consortia’, Research Policy, 31, pp. 633-51.
180. Matsumoto, Koji (1991), The Rise of the Japanese Corporate System, London and New York: Kegan Paul International.
181. Milgrom, Peter and John Roberts (1992), Economics, Organization and Management, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
182. Mogyorósi, Péter, Márton Vilmányi and Balázs Révész (2003), ‘Experiences in the Fields of Innovation Services in Hungary at the Age of Millennium’, in I. Lengyel (ed.) Knowledge Transfer, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, and Regional Development, Szeged: JATEPress. pp. 47-59.
183. Moore, J. I. (2001), Writers on Strategy and Strategic Management. Theory and Practice at Enterprise, Corporate Business and Functional Levels, 2nd edn, London: Penguin Business.
184. Mucchielli, Jean-Louis and Michel Sollogoub (1980), L’échange international. Fondements théoriques et analyses empiriques, Paris: Economica, p. 220.
185. Mulligan, Casey B. and Xavier Sala-i-Martin (1995), ‘Measuring aggregate human capital’, National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, no 5016, Cambridge, MA.
186. Mustar, Philippe and Philippe Larédo (2002), ‘Innovation and research policy in France (1980-2000) or the disappearance of the Colbertist state’, Research Policy, 31, pp. 55-72.
187. Müller, Karel (2001), ‘The Czech Republic: Science, Technology and Education’, in G. Gorzelak et al. Central Europe in Transition: Towards EU Membership, Warsaw: Regional Studies Association Polish Section, Wydawnictwo Naukowe. pp. 186-206.
188. Nalymov, Vassily Vassiliyevitch, and Zinaida Maximovna Mulchenko (1980), Tudománymetria [Scientometrics], Budapest: Academy Publishers, (Original: V.V. Nalymov and Z.M. Mulchenko: Naukometria-izuchenie razvitiya nauki kak informatsionnogo processa (1969), Moscow: Nauka).
189. Narula, Rajneesh (2002), ‘Innovation systems and “inertia” in R&D location: Norwegian firms and the role of systemic lock-in’, Research Policy, 31, pp. 795-816.
190. National Academy of Sciences (1994), see Biegelbauer, 2000, p. 42, National Academy Press, Spring.
191. National Science Board (1998), Science and Engineering Indicators 1998, Arlington, VA: National Science Board.
192. Neary, J. Peter (2003), ‘Competitive versus comparative advantage’, World Economy, 26, (4), April, pp. 457-70.
193. Negassi, S. (2004), ‘R&D co-operation and innovation a microeconomic study on French firms’, Research Policy, 33, 365-84.
194. Nelson, Richard R. (1993), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
195. Nelson, Richard R. (1995), ‘Recent evolutionary theorizing about economic change’, Journal of Economic Literature, 33, March, pp. 48-90.
196. Nelson, Richard R. (2004), ‘The market economy, and the scientific commons’, Research Policy, 33, pp. 455-71.
197. Nelson, Richard R. and Sidney Winter (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
198. Nikodémus, Antal (2003), ‘A hazai innováció perspektívái EU-csatlakozásunk eloestéjén’ [Perspectives of Hungarian innovation on the eve of EU-accession], Külgazdaság, 47 (12), pp. 37-52.
199. Niwa, F. and H. Tomizawa (1995), Composite Indicators: International Comparison of Overall Strengths in Science and Technology, National Institute of Science and Technology Policy report 37.
200. NSB (2002), Science and Engineering Indicators 2002, vol I, Arlington, VA: National Science Board, National Science Foundation.
201. NSB (2004), Science and Engineering Indicators 2004, vol I, Arlington, VA: National Science Board, National Science Foundation.
202. Nyitrai, Ferencné (2003), ‘A K+F finanszírozása a fejlett világban és Magyarországon’ [The financing of R&D in the advanced world and Hungary], Development and Finance, 3, pp. 3-11.
203. Oblath, Gábor and Petra Pénzes (2003), ‘A hazai gazdaság nemzetközi versenyképessége: értelmezések, mutatók és néhány tanulság’ [International competitiveness of the domestic economy. Concepts, indicators and some conclusions], Competitio, 2 (2), November, pp. 20-41.
204. OECD (1968), Gaps in Technology: General Report, Paris: OECD
205. OECD (1971), Conditions for Success in Technological Innovation, Paris: OECD.
206. OECD (1978), Report of the Second Ad Hoc Review Group on R&D Statistics, Paris: OECD.
207. OECD (1992), ‘Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data’, in Oslo Manual, 1992, Paris: OECD.
208. OECD (1990), ‘Proposed standard method of compiling and interpreting technology balance of payments data’, in TBP Manual, 1990, Paris: OECD.
209. OECD (1994), Using Patent Data as Science and Technology Indicators, Paris: OECD.
210. OECD (1999), OECD Country Studies. Hungary, Paris and Budapest: OECD.
211. OECD (2001), Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2001, Towards a knowledge-based economy, Paris: OECD.
212. OECD (2002), www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/9201131E.PDF.
213. OECD (2002). Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development [Frascati Manual], Paris. OECD.
214. OECD (2002), The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data [Oslo Manual], Paris: OECD.
215. OM (2002), Kutatás-fejlesztés Magyarországon [Research and Development in Hungary], Budapest: Oklatási Minisztérium [Ministry of Education].
216. OMFB (1996), Evaluation of the Applied R&D Programme 1991-1995, OMFB (National Committee for Technological Development), Budapest, 1996, 34.
217. OMFB (1999a), Research and Development in Hungary, KSH-OMFB.
218. OMFB (1999b), National Innovation System in Hungary, Budapest: OMFB (National Committee for Technological Development).
219. Özcelik, Emre and Erol Taymaz (2004), ‘Does innovativeness matter for international competitiveness in developing countries? The case of Turkish manufacturing industries’, Research Policy, 33, pp. 409-24.
220. Pajarinen, Mika, Pentti Rouvinen and Pekka Ylä-Anttila (1998), Small Country Strategies in Global Competition: Benchmarking the Finnish Case, Helsinki: ETLA-SITRA.
221. Palkovits, István (2002), ‘Autonóm szereplok, piaci erok és regionális gazdaságfejlodés’ [Autonomous players, market powers and regional economic development], PhD thesis, University of Pécs, Faculty of Economics.
222. Palló, Gábor (2001), ‘Nobel preferenciák’ [Nobel preferences], Magyar Tudomány, 46 (12), pp. 1426-36.
223. Papanek, Gábor (ed) (1999), A magyar innovációs rendszer fobb összefüggései [Main Patterns of the Hungarian Innovation System], Budapest: OMFB.
224. Papanek, Gábor (2003), ‘The “European Paradox” in the Hungarian R&D sector’, Development and Finance, 4, pp. 40-7.
225. Papp, Zoltán (2004), ‘A tudományos teljesítmény mérésének problémáiról’ [On the problems of measuring scientific performance], Magyar Tudomány, 110 (2), pp. 232-40.
226. Patel, Pari and Keith Pavitt (1995), ‘Patterns of technological activity: their measurement and interpretation’, in P. Stoneman (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Technical Change, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 14-51.
227. Pavitt, Keith (1984), ‘Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory’, Research Policy, 13, pp. 343-73, reprinted in Pavitt (1999). pp. 15-45.
228. Pavitt, Keith (1987), ‘The objectives of technology policy’, Science and Public Policy, 14 (4), August, pp. 182-8, reprinted in Pavitt (1999), pp. 3-14.
229. Pavitt, Keith (1991), ‘What makes basic research economically useful?' Research Policy, 20, pp. 109-19, reprinted in Pavitt (1999), pp. 222-32.
230. Pavitt, Keith (1996), ‘National policies for technical change: where are the increasing returns to economic research?', proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93, November, 12693-12700, reprinted in Pavitt (1999), pp. 233-47.
231. Pavitt, Keith (1999), Technology, Management and Systems of Innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar.
232. Pavitt, Keith and Pari Patel (1991), ‘Large firms in the production of the world’s technology: an important case of “non-globalisation”,' Journal of International Business Studies, 22 (1), pp. 1-21, reprinted in Pavitt (1999), pp. 125-48.
233. Pearson, K. (1901), On lines and planes of closest fit to system of points in space, Philosophical Magazine, 2 (6th series), pp. 559-72.
234. Penyigey, Krisztina (1996), ‘Structure of the Hungarian consumer goods market: an analysis with the help of product tests’, Ipargazdasági Szemle/Review of Industrial Economics, special issue, pp. 61-74.
235. Perez, Carlota (1988), New Technologies and Development, in Christopher Freeman and Bengt-Åke Lundvall (eds) Small Countries Facing the Technological Revolution, London and New York: Pinter Publishers, pp. 85-97.
236. Péteri, György (1989), ‘Születésnapi ajándék Sztálinnak. Vázlat a Magyar Tudományos Akadémia államosításának történetéhez 1945-49' (A birthday present to Stalin. An outline of the nationalisation of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1945-1949], Századvég, 1-2, pp. 18-35.
237. Petit, Pascal (1999), ‘Les aléas de la croissance dans une économie fondée sur le savoir’, Revue d’Économie Industrielle, (88) (2e trimestre) (numéro spécial: L’économie de la connaissance), pp. 41-66.
238. Petit, Pascal and Luc Soete (eds) (2001), Technology and the Future of European Employment, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
239. Petrenko, Galyna (2003), New Economy and ICT Development: The Case of EU Accession Countries, MA thesis, CEU Economics Department, Budapest.
240. Peyrefitte, Alain (1976), Le mal français, Paris: Librairie Plon.
241. Pitti, Zoltán (2002), ‘A versenyképesség, mint napjaink legújabb kihívása’ [Competitiveness as the most recent challenge of our times], Vezetéstudomány, 33 special issue, pp. 14-22.
242. Plasschaert, Sylvain (1995), ‘Recent books on transfer pricing: a review article’, Transnational Corporations, 4 (1) April, pp. 97-112.
243. Porter, Michael E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, New York: Free Press.
244. Porter, Michael E. (2001), ‘Strategy and the Internet’, Harvard Business Review, March, HBR OnPoint, pp. 62-78.
245. Porter, Michael E. (2003), ‘Building the microeconomic foundations of prosperity: findings from the microeconomic competitiveness index’, in The Global Competitiveness Report, World Economic Forum, pp. 23-45.
246. Porter, Michael E. and Scott Stern (1999), The New Challenge to America’s Prosperity: Findings from the Innovation Index, Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness.
247. Posner, M.V. (1961), ‘International trade and technical change’, Oxford Economic Papers.
248. Pritchard, A. (1969), ‘Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics?' Journal of Documentation, 24, pp. 348-49.
249. Pyka, Andreas and Günther Küppers (2002), Innovation Networks. Theory and Practice, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar.
250. Rodrigues, Maria João (2003), European Policies for a Knowledge Economy, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
251. Román, Zoltán (2000), ‘Az Európai Unió innovációpolitikája’ [Innovation Policy in the European Union], Európai Tükör, (3) 33-47.
252. Román, Zoltán (2002), ‘A kutatás-fejlesztés teljesítményértékelése’ [Performance Evaluation in R&D], Közgazdasági Szemle, 49, April.
253. Romer, Paul (1990), ‘Endogenous technical change’, Journal of Political Economy, 98 (5), pp. 71-102.
254. Sachs, Jeffrey (2000), ‘A new map of the world. Today’s world is divided not by ideology but by technology’, This demands, Jeffrey Sachs argues here, bold new thinking on development. The Economist, 24 June, pp. 99-101.
255. Sakakibara, Mariko and Dong-Sung Cho (2002), ‘Cooperative R&D in Japan and Korea: a comparison of industrial policy’, Research Policy, 31, pp. 673-92.
256. Salgó, István and Ádám Török (1980), ‘Importverseny a gépipari fogyasztási cikkek piacán’ (Import Competition on the Market of Engineering Products for Consumption). Külgazdaság, 12, pp. 47-56.
257. Salter, Ammon and Ben R. Martin (2001), ‘The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review’, Research Policy, 30, 509-32.
258. Salvatore, Dominick (2002), ‘International Competitiveness, Multifactor Productivity and Growth in the United States, Europe, Japan and Asia’, in Roger Grawe and András Inotai (eds), Trade, Integration and Transition: International Conference in Memoriam Bela Balassa, Budapest: World Bank and Institute for World Economics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, pp. 25-37.
259. Scherer, F.M. (1994), Competition Policies for an Integrated World Economy, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
260. Scherer, F.M. (1996), Industry Structure, Strategy and Public Policy, New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
261. Scherer, F.M. and David Ross (1990), Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, 3rd edition, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
262. Schubert, András (2003), ‘Magyarország helyzete a világ országai között a tudománymetriai mutatószámok alapján készített rangsorokban és térképeken’ [Hungary’s position in the world in ranking lists and maps prepared on the basis of scientometric indicators], unpublished manuscript, Budapest, June.
263. Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1912), Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, Berlin and München: Duncker und Humblot.
264. Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1954/1986), History of Economic Analysis, New York: Oxford University Press.
265. Servan-Schreiber, Jean-Jacques (1967), Le défiaméricain, Paris: Flammarion.
266. Slovenian Ministry of Education, Science and Sport (2002), Science in Slovenia, Ljubljana: Republic of Slovenia Ministry of Education, Science and Sport.
267. Sherry, Edward F. and David J. Teece (2004), ‘Royalties, evolving patent rights, and the value of innovation’, Research Policy, 33, pp. 179-91.
268. Shy, Oz (1995), Industrial Organization, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
269. Siegler, András (2003), ‘Az európai kutatási térség és Magyarország’ [The European Research Area and Hungary], Európai Tükör, 2, pp. 33-53.
270. Simon, Herbert A. (1999), ‘The many shapes of knowledge’, Revue d’Économie Industrielle, 88, (2e trimestre) (numéro spécial: L’économie de la connaissance), pp. 23-40.
271. Simonovits, András (2004), ‘Publikációs szelekció a közgazdaságtanban’ [Publicational selection in economics], BUKSZ, 16, p. 158.
272. Simonyi, Károly (2001), ‘A magyarországi fizika kultúrtörténete’ [The cultural history of physics in Hungary], A Természet Világa, special issue 1, p. 14.
273. Spearman, C.E. (1904), ‘Proof and measurement of association between two things’, American Journal of Psychology, 15, pp. 72-101.
274. Steinbock, Dan (1998), The Competitive Advantage of Finland. From Cartels to Competition, Helsinki: Taloustieto Oy.
275. Stout, David and Peter Swann (1993), ‘The non-price competitiveness of British firms’, in Kirsty Hughes (ed.), The Future of UK Competitiveness and the Role of Industrial Policy, London: Policy Studies Institute, pp. 28-39.
276. Sutton, John (1991), Sunk Costs and Market Structure. Price Competition, Advertising and the Evolution of Concentration, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
277. Sutz, Judith (2000), ‘The university-industry-government relations in Latin America’, Research Policy, 29, pp. 279-90.
278. Swerling, C.B. (1954), ‘Capital shortage and labor surplus in the United States’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 36 (3), pp. 286-9.
279. Szentes, Tamás (2002a), Globalizáció, regionális integrációk és nemzeti fejlodés korunk világgazdaságában [Globalisation, Regional Integrations and National Development in the Modern World Economy], Szombathely: Savaria University Press.
280. Szentes, Tamás (2002b), ‘Néhány gondolat a “humán tokére” és a tudományos kutatásokra fordított költségek kérdéséhez’ [Some thoughts on the costs of ‘human capital’ and scientific research], Magyar Tudomány, 5, pp. 636-47.
281. Tamási, Péter (2001), Education, Science and Technology in Hungary, in G. Gorzelak et al. (eds), Central Europe in Transition: Towards EU Membership, Warsaw: Regional Studies Association Polish Section, Wydawnictwo Naukowe. pp. 207-23.
282. Tchalakov, I. (2001), ‘Innovating in Bulgaria: two cases in the life of laboratory before and after 1989', Research Policy, 30, pp. 391-402.
283. Temple, Paul and Giovanni Urga (1997), ‘The competitiveness of UK manufacturing: evidence from imports’, Oxford Economic Papers, 49, pp. 207-27.
284. Tirole, Jean (1988), The Theory of Industrial Organization, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
285. Török, Ádám (1986a), Komparatív elonyök. Nemzetközi példák, hazai tapasztalatok [Comparative Advantages. International Patterns, Domestic Experience], Budapest: KJK.
286. Török, Ádám (1986b) ‘Belso szabadkereskedelem és világgazdasági integrálódás. Gondolatok a Cockfield-jelentés nyomán’ [Internal free trade and integration in the world economy. Thoughts provoked by the Cockfield Report], Külgazdaság, 30 (6), pp. 3-12.
287. Török, Ádám (1989), ‘Komparatív elonyök, versenyképesség, piacmuködés’ [Comparative advantages, competitiveness and the functioning of markets], Ipargazdasági Szemle, (3), pp. 23-34.
288. Török, Ádám (1994), ‘Human resources and technology change in Eastern Europe’, International Journal of Technology Management, (1), pp. 3-4.
289. Török, Ádám (1996a), ‘A K+F diffúziós rendszere Magyarországon’ [The system of R&D diffusion in Hungary], Külgazdaság, 5, pp. 63-72.
290. Török, Ádám (1996b), Piacmuködés és iparvédelem [Market Performance and the Protection of Domestic Industry], Pécs: Janus Pannonius University Publishers.
291. Török, Ádám (1997a), ‘Az elso átfogó projektértékelési kísérlet Magyarországon’ [The first comprehensive effort of project evaluation in Hungary], Közgazdasági Szemle, 44, pp. 69-82.
292. Török, Ádám (1997b), ‘A versenyképesség-elemzés egyes módszertani kérdései’ [Some methodological issues of competitiveness analysis], Gazdaság-Vállalkozás-Vezetés, 3, pp. 2-13.
293. Török, Ádám (1999a), Verseny a versenyképességért? Mikroszféra-kezelési politikák az Európai Unióban és Magyarországon [Competing for Competitiveness? Policies Affecting Business in the EU and Hungary], Budapest: Prime Minister’s Office.
294. Török, Ádám (1999b), ‘A verseny-és a K+F-politika keresztútján. Bevezetés a csoportmentességi szabályozás elméletébe’ [At the crossroads of competition and R&D policy. Introduction in the theory of block exemptions] Közgazdasági Szemle, 41, June, pp. 491-506.
295. Török, Ádám (2000), ‘Reális-e a magyar tudomány 20. helyezése a (képzeletbeli) világranglistán?' [Is the 20th position of Hungarian science realistic on an [imaginary] world ranking list?], Magyar Tudomány, 11, pp. 1307-28.
296. Török, Ádám (2001), ‘Piacgazdasági érettség többféleképpen? Néhány alapfogalom értelmezése és alkalmazása a világgazdaság három nagy régiójában’ [Mature in several ways for market economy? The application and interpretation of some basic terms in three large regions of the world economy], Közgazdasági Szemle, 48 (September), pp. 707-25.
297. Török, Ádám (2002), Hungarian Science and Technology in the Top Twenty? in A. Varga-L. Szerb (eds), Innovation, Entrepreneurship, Regions and Economic Development: International Experiences and Hungarian Challenges, Pécs: University of Pécs. pp. 11-26.
298. Trajtenberg, Manuel (2001), ‘Innovation in Israel 1968-1997: a comparative analysis using patent data’, Research Policy, 30, pp. 363-89.
299. Trebilcock, Michael J. and Robert Howse (1995), The Regulation of International Trade, London and New York: Routledge.
300. Turkkan, N. (1999), ‘GENETIK. Floating point genetic algorithm for minimization problems’, Excel file, V2, June, Université de Moncton: School of Engineering, Canada.
301. UNCTAD (1995), World Investment Report 1995, Transnational Corporations and Competitiveness, New York and Geneva: United Nations.
302. UNCTAD (2002), World Investment Report 2002: Transnational Corporations and Export Competitiveness, New York and Geneva: United Nations.
303. UNCTAD (2003), World Investment Report 2003: FDI Policies for Development: National and International Perspectives, New York and Geneva: United Nations.
304. UNCTAD Secretariat (2002), Indicators of the Technology Development, Geneva: United Nations.
305. UNESCO (1998), World Science Report, London: UNESCO Publishing-Elsevier.
306. Utterback, James and Fernando Suarez (1993), ‘Innovation, competition and market structure’, Research Policy, 22 (1), 1-21.
307. Varga, Attila and László Szerb (eds) (2002), Innovation, Entrepreneurship, Regions and Economic Development: International Experiences and Hungarian Challenges, Pécs: University of Pécs.
308. Varian, Hal R. (1999), Intermediate Microeconomics, New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company.
309. Varsakelis, Nikos C. (2001), ‘The impact of patent protection, economy openness and national culture on R&D investment: a cross-country empirical investigation’, Research Policy, 30, pp. 1059-68.
310. Vernon, Raymond (1979), ‘The product cycle hypothesis in a new international environment’, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 41 (4) (November), pp. 255-67.
311. Vickers, John (1995), ‘Concepts of Competition’, Oxford Economic Papers, 47, pp. 1-23.
312. Viotti, E.B. (1997), ‘Passive and active national learning systems’, PhD dissertation, New School for Social Research, New York, cited by Freeman (2002).
313. Walls, Vivien (1988), ‘Technology and the competitiveness of small countries: a review’, in Christopher Freeman and Bengt-Åke Lundvall (eds), Small Countries Facing the Technological Revolution, London and New York: Pinter Publishers, pp. 37-66.
314. Walsh, Vivien (1988), ‘Technology and the competitiveness of small countries: a review’, in Chris Freeman and Bengt-Åke Lundvall (eds), Small Countries Facing the Technological Revolution, London: Pinter Publishers, pp. 37-66.
315. Wells, L. (1969), ‘Test of a product cycle model of international trade’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 83 (1) (February), pp. 152-62.
316. Williamson, Oliver E. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, New York: Free Press.
317. Wilson, David and Vangelis Soutiaris (2002), ‘Do Germany’s federal and land governments (still) co-ordinate their innovation policies?', Research Policy, 31, pp. 1123-40.
318. World Economic Forum (WEF) (1999), The World Competitiveness Yearbook 1999, Geneva-Davos: World Economic Forum.
319. Wyatt, Geoffrey (1986), The Economics of Invention. A Study of the Determinants of Inventive Activity, Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books, Harvester Press.
320. Zajac, Stefan (2001), ‘Science, technology, education in Slovakia’, in G. Gorzelak et al. Central Europe in Transition: Towards EU Membership, Warsaw: Regional Studies Association Polish Section, Wydawnictwo Naukowe, pp. 243-63.
321. Zellner, Christian (2003), ‘The economic effects of basic research: evidence for embodied knowledge transfer via scientists’ migration’, Research Policy, 32, pp. 1881-95.