IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v31y2008i3p284-298.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Data and the measurement of R&D program impacts

Author

Listed:
  • Cozzarin, Brian P.

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to propose a research agenda for the measurement of economic impacts of Canadian government R&D support programs. Different methodologies and indicators used to assess benefits from government support programs/agencies for R&D are discussed first. Using available information on major business-related R&D federal programs, the paper will assess which indicators and methodologies can be implemented. The specific programs/agencies under investigation include: Technology Partnerships Canada sponsored by Industry Canada, Industrial Research Assistance Program sponsored by National Research Council, Atlantic Innovation Fund sponsored by Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Canadian Space Agency and National Defence.

Suggested Citation

  • Cozzarin, Brian P., 2008. "Data and the measurement of R&D program impacts," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 284-298, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:31:y:2008:i:3:p:284-298
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149-7189(08)00030-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tassey, Gregory, 1999. "Lessons learned about the methodology of economic impact studies: the nist experience," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 113-119.
    2. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Toole, Andrew A., 2000. "Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 497-529, April.
    3. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    5. David J. Teece, 2008. "Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 11, pages 265-296, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Anonymous, 1962. "Economic and Social Council," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 195-216, January.
    7. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Rank, Dennis & Williams, Douglas, 1999. "Partial benefit/cost in the evaluation of the Canadian Networks of Centres of Excellence," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 121-129.
    9. Anonymous, 1962. "Economic and Social Council," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 835-844, October.
    10. McFetridge, D.G., 1995. "Science and Technology: Perspectives for Public Policy," Gouvernement du Canada - Industrial Organization 9, Gouvernement du Canada - Industry Canada.
    11. Anonymous, 1962. "Economic and Social Council," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 587-596, July.
    12. Feller, Irwin & Ailes, Catherine P. & Roessner, J. David, 2002. "Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: evidence from engineering research centers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 457-474, March.
    13. Kostoff, Ronald N., 1995. "Research requirements for research impact assessment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 869-882, November.
    14. T N van Leeuwen & L J van der Wurff & A F J van Raan, 2001. "The use of combined bibliometric methods in research funding policy," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 195-201, December.
    15. Brian P. Cozzarin, 2006. "Performance measures for the socio-economic impact of government spending on R&D," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(1), pages 41-71, July.
    16. Jacob Schmookler, 1959. "Bigness, Fewness, and Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(6), pages 628-628.
    17. Luukkonen, Terttu, 1995. "The impacts of research field evaluations on research practice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 349-365, May.
    18. Mueller, Dennis C., 1997. "First-mover advantages and path dependence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 827-850, October.
    19. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(3), pages 297-297.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Meesapawong, Pawadee & Rezgui, Yacine & Li, Haijiang, 2014. "Planning innovation orientation in public research and development organizations: Using a combined Delphi and Analytic Hierarchy Process approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 245-256.
    2. Andrés Barge-Gil & Aurelia Modrego, 2011. "The impact of research and technology organizations on firm competitiveness. Measurement and determinants," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 61-83, February.
    3. Marge Seppo & Kärt Rõigas & Urmas Varblane, 2014. "Governmental Support Measures for University–Industry Cooperation—Comparative View in Europe," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 5(2), pages 388-408, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kamilia Loukil, 2016. "Innovation Policy and R&D Efficiency in Emerging Countries: a Stochastic Frontier Analysis," Eastern European Business and Economics Journal, Eastern European Business and Economics Studies Centre, vol. 2(3), pages 165-192.
    2. Iizuka, Michiko & Ikeda, Yoko, 2021. "Regulation and innovation under the 4th industrial revolution: The case of a healthcare robot, HAL by Cyberdyne," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    3. Becker, Lasse & Bizer, Kilian, 2015. "Federalism and innovation support for small and medium-sized enterprises: Empirical evidence in Europe," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 245, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    4. Beom Cheol Cin & Young Jun Kim & Nicholas S. Vonortas, 2017. "The impact of public R&D subsidy on small firm productivity: evidence from Korean SMEs," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 345-360, February.
    5. Anders Gustafsson & Andreas Stephan & Alice Hallman & Nils Karlsson, 2016. "The “sugar rush” from innovation subsidies: a robust political economy perspective," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 43(4), pages 729-756, November.
    6. Koutroumpis, Pantelis & Leiponen, Aija & Thomas, Llewellyn D W, 2017. "The (Unfulfilled) Potential of Data Marketplaces," ETLA Working Papers 53, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    7. Hana Ayala, 2020. "Transnational Resort: a Transformative Investment in the Global Knowledge Economy," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(4), pages 1573-1595, December.
    8. Jung‐Ah Hwang & Yeonbae Kim, 2017. "Effects of Environmental Regulations on Trade Flow in Manufacturing Sectors: Comparison of Static and Dynamic Effects of Environmental Regulations," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 688-706, July.
    9. Hana Ayala, 2017. "The Economic Might of Earth’s Evolution: The Epic Promise of Knowledge," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, April.
    10. Jürgen Janger & Agnes Kügler & Andreas Reinstaller & Peter Reschenhofer & Fabian Unterlass, 2017. "Austria 2025 – A New Strategic Innovation Policy Framework. Addressing Structural Change and Upgrading," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 59290.
    11. Paraskevopoulou, Evita, 2012. "Non-technological regulatory effects: Implications for innovation and innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1058-1071.
    12. Grilli, Luca & Murtinu, Samuele, 2018. "Selective subsidies, entrepreneurial founders' human capital, and access to R&D alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1945-1963.
    13. Iizuka, Michiko & Ikeda, Yoko, 2019. "Regulation and innovation under Industry 4.0: Case of medical/healthcare robot, HAL by Cyberdyne," MERIT Working Papers 2019-038, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    14. Yang Pan & Peng Huang & Anandasivam Gopal, 2019. "Storm Clouds on the Horizon? New Entry Threats and R&D Investments in the U.S. IT Industry," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 540-562, June.
    15. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Clément Bonnet, 2016. "Revisiting the optimal patent policy tradeoff for environmental technologies," EconomiX Working Papers 2016-34, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    17. Anabela Santos & Michele Cincera & Paulo Neto & Maria Manuel Serrano, 2019. "How internationalization and competitiveness contribute to get public support to innovation? The Portuguese case," GEE Papers 0121, Gabinete de Estratégia e Estudos, Ministério da Economia, revised May 2019.
    18. Nicola Lacetera, 2003. "Incentives and spillovers in R&D activities: an agency-theoretic analysis of industry-university relations," Microeconomics 0312004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Hottenrott, Hanna, 2012. "Collaborative R&D as a strategy to attenuate financing constraints," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-049, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    20. Li, Qing & Zhang, Huaige & Hong, Xianpei, 2020. "Knowledge structure of technology licensing based on co-keywords network: A review and future directions," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 154-165.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:31:y:2008:i:3:p:284-298. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.