IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/techno/v130y2024ics0166497223002122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

University procurement-led innovation: Sources, procedures, and effects. Some field-study evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Patsali, Sofia

Abstract

This paper introduces a new perspective about the economic role of research by focusing on the impact of university procurement on firm innovation. We discuss how universities play a leading role in scientific equipment innovation, akin to the one portrayed for US and European government agencies in the context of military equipment and driven by specific missions. The key difference is that missions in university procurement emerge in a bottom-up fashion, and they are driven by the scientific agenda of university researchers. Furthermore, we discuss the basic ingredients of such a “university procurement-led innovation” and we support our claims with field-study evidence about the development of five advanced equipment co-developed by researchers at the University of Strasbourg (France) together with their suppliers.

Suggested Citation

  • Patsali, Sofia, 2024. "University procurement-led innovation: Sources, procedures, and effects. Some field-study evidence," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:130:y:2024:i:c:s0166497223002122
    DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102901
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497223002122
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102901?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Malerba, Franco, 2002. "Sectoral systems of innovation and production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 247-264, February.
    2. Maurseth, Per Botolf & Svensson, Roger, 2020. "The Importance of Tacit Knowledge: Dynamic Inventor Activity in the Commercialization Phase," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    3. Klofsten, Magnus & Fayolle, Alain & Guerrero, Maribel & Mian, Sarfraz & Urbano, David & Wright, Mike, 2019. "The entrepreneurial university as driver for economic growth and social change - Key strategic challenges," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 149-158.
    4. Massimo Florio & Francesco Giffoni & Anna Giunta & Emanuela Sirtori, 2018. "Big science, learning, and innovation: evidence from CERN procurement," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(5), pages 915-936.
    5. Carayol, Nicolas, 2003. "Objectives, agreements and matching in science-industry collaborations: reassembling the pieces of the puzzle," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 887-908, June.
    6. Ralph C. Epstein, 1926. "Industrial Invention: Heroic, or Systematic?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 40(2), pages 232-272.
    7. Alessandra Scandura & Simona Iammarino, 2022. "Academic engagement with industry: the role of research quality and experience," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1000-1036, August.
    8. Stefano Bianchini & Moritz Müller & Pierre Pelletier, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of invention," Post-Print hal-03958025, HAL.
    9. Freeman, Chris, 1994. "The Economics of Technical Change," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 18(5), pages 463-514, October.
    10. Keith Pavitt & Luc Soete, 1980. "Innovative Activities and Export Shares: some Comparisons between Industries and Countries," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Keith Pavitt (ed.), Technical Innovation and British Economic Performance, chapter 3, pages 38-66, Palgrave Macmillan.
    11. Mowery, David C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Sampat, Bhaven N. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2001. "The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 99-119, January.
    12. Aldridge, Taylor & Audretsch, David B., 2010. "Does policy influence the commercialization route? Evidence from National Institutes of Health funded scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 583-588, June.
    13. Rosenberg, Nathan & Nelson, Richard R., 1994. "American universities and technical advance in industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 323-348, May.
    14. Mansfield, Edwin, 1998. "Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(7-8), pages 773-776, April.
    15. Giovanni Dosi, 2000. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Chapters, in: Innovation, Organization and Economic Dynamics, chapter 2, pages 63-114, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Pavitt, K, 2001. "Public Policies to Support Basic Research: What Can the Rest of the World Learn from US Theory and Practice? (And What They Should Not Learn)," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(3), pages 761-779, September.
    17. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    18. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    19. Siegel, Donald S. & Waldman, David & Link, Albert, 2003. "Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 27-48, January.
    20. Kenney, Martin & Patton, Donald, 2009. "Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the Current University Invention Ownership Model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1407-1422, November.
    21. Clarysse, Bart & Wright, Mike & Lockett, Andy & Van de Velde, Els & Vohora, Ajay, 2005. "Spinning out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 183-216, March.
    22. von Hippel, Eric, 1976. "The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 212-239, July.
    23. Paula Stephan & Shiferaw Gurmu & Albert Sumell & Grant Black, 2007. "Who'S Patenting In The University? Evidence From The Survey Of Doctorate Recipients," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 71-99.
    24. Pavitt, Keith, 1991. "What makes basic research economically useful?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 109-119, April.
    25. Lichtenberg, Frank R, 1984. "The Relationship between Federal Contract R&D and Company R&D," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(2), pages 73-78, May.
    26. Dosi, G. & Virgillito, M.E., 2021. "In order to stand up you must keep cycling: Change and coordination in complex evolving economies," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 353-364.
    27. Albert N. Link & Donald S. Siegel & Barry Bozeman, 2007. "An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(4), pages 641-655, August.
    28. Autio, Erkko & Hameri, Ari-Pekka & Vuola, Olli, 2004. "A framework of industrial knowledge spillovers in big-science centers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 107-126, January.
    29. Diana Hicks & Anthony Breitzman & Kimberly Hamilton & Francis Narin, 2000. "Research excellence and patented innovation," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(5), pages 310-320, October.
    30. Clarysse, Bart & Tartari, Valentina & Salter, Ammon, 2011. "The impact of entrepreneurial capacity, experience and organizational support on academic entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1084-1093, October.
    31. Rajeev K. Goel & Devrim Göktepe-Hultén, 2018. "What drives academic patentees to bypass TTOs? Evidence from a large public research organisation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 240-258, February.
    32. Janet Bercovitz & Maryann Feldman, 2008. "Academic Entrepreneurs: Organizational Change at the Individual Level," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 69-89, February.
    33. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    34. William B Bonvillian, 2018. "DARPA and its ARPA-E and IARPA clones: a unique innovation organization model," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(5), pages 897-914.
    35. James A. Cunningham & Matthias Menter & Chris Young, 2017. "A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 923-956, August.
    36. Globocnik, Dietfried & Faullant, Rita, 2021. "Do lead users cooperate with manufacturers in innovation? Investigating the missing link between lead userness and cooperation initiation with manufacturers," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    37. Sharon Weinberger, 2008. "Defence research: Still in the lead?," Nature, Nature, vol. 451(7177), pages 390-393, January.
    38. Castelnovo, Paolo & Florio, Massimo & Forte, Stefano & Rossi, Lucio & Sirtori, Emanuela, 2018. "The economic impact of technological procurement for large-scale research infrastructures: Evidence from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1853-1867.
    39. Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas & Aldo Geuna & Federica Rossi, 2011. "University–Industry Interactions: The Unresolved Puzzle," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 11, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    40. Dosi, Giovanni & Llerena, Patrick & Labini, Mauro Sylos, 2006. "The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called `European Paradox'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1450-1464, December.
    41. Gianluca Fabiano & Andrea Marcellusi & Giampiero Favato, 2020. "Channels and processes of knowledge transfer: How does knowledge move between university and industry?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(2), pages 256-270.
    42. Gambardella, Alfonso, 1992. "Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research: The US pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 391-407, October.
    43. Mariana Mazzucato, 2016. "From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 140-156, February.
    44. Baldwin, Carliss & Hienerth, Christoph & von Hippel, Eric, 2006. "How user innovations become commercial products: A theoretical investigation and case study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1291-1313, November.
    45. Annelore Huyghe & Mirjam Knockaert & Evila Piva & Mike Wright, 2016. "Are researchers deliberately bypassing the technology transfer office? An analysis of TTO awareness," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 589-607, October.
    46. Fabrizio, Kira R. & Di Minin, Alberto, 2008. "Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 914-931, June.
    47. Susanne Beck & Carsten Bergenholtz & Marcel Bogers & Tiare-Maria Brasseur & Marie Louise Conradsen & Diletta Di Marco & Andreas P. Distel & Leonhard Dobusch & Daniel Dörler & Agnes Effert & Benedikt F, 2022. "The Open Innovation in Science research field: a collaborative conceptualisation approach," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 136-185, February.
    48. Chapple, Wendy & Lockett, Andy & Siegel, Donald & Wright, Mike, 2005. "Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 369-384, April.
    49. Higgins, Matthew J. & Rodriguez, Daniel, 2006. "The outsourcing of R&D through acquisitions in the pharmaceutical industry," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 351-383, May.
    50. Riccardo Fini & Rosa Grimaldi & Maurizio Sobrero, 2009. "Factors fostering academics to start up new ventures: an assessment of Italian founders’ incentives," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 380-402, August.
    51. Mario Cimoli & Giovanni Dosi & Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2008. "The Future of Industrial Policies in the New Millennium: Toward a Knowledge-Centered Development Agenda," LEM Papers Series 2008/19, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    52. Richard Franza & Kevin Grant & W. Spivey, 2012. "Technology transfer contracts between R&D labs and commercial partners: choose your words wisely," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 577-587, August.
    53. Brantnell, Anders & Baraldi, Enrico, 2022. "Understanding the roles and involvement of technology transfer offices in the commercialization of university research," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    54. Alessandro Muscio, 2010. "What drives the university use of technology transfer offices? Evidence from Italy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 181-202, April.
    55. Chiara Franzoni, 2009. "Do scientists get fundamental research ideas by solving practical problems?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 18(4), pages 671-699, August.
    56. Richard Nelson, 2004. "The challenge of building an effective innovation system for catch-up," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 365-374.
    57. Thursby, Jerry G. & Kemp, Sukanya, 2002. "Growth and productive efficiency of university intellectual property licensing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 109-124, January.
    58. Ajay Agrawal & Rebecca Henderson, 2002. "Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 44-60, January.
    59. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1990. "Complementarity and External Linkages: The Strategies of the Large Firms in Biotechnology," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(4), pages 361-379, June.
    60. Maryann Feldman & Irwin Feller & Janet Bercovitz & Richard Burton, 2002. "Equity and the Technology Transfer Strategies of American Research Universities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 105-121, January.
    61. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    62. Mansfield, Edwin & Lee, Jeong-Yeon, 1996. "The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(7), pages 1047-1058, October.
    63. Iain M. Cockburn & Rebecca M. Henderson & Scott Stern, 2000. "Untangling the origins of competitive advantage," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1123-1145, October.
    64. Chuma, Hiroyuki, 2006. "Increasing complexity and limits of organization in the microlithography industry: implications for science-based industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 394-411, April.
    65. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1994. "The changing technology of technological change: general and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 523-532, September.
    66. Perkmann, Markus & Salandra, Rossella & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Hughes, Alan, 2021. "Academic engagement: A review of the literature 2011-2019," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    67. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2003. "Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D," Chapters, in: Aldo Geuna & Ammon J. Salter & W. Edward Steinmueller (ed.), Science and Innovation, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    68. Narin, Francis & Hamilton, Kimberly S. & Olivastro, Dominic, 1997. "The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 317-330, October.
    69. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Andrea Patacconi, 2018. "The decline of science in corporate R&D," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 3-32, January.
    70. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1992. "Scientific instrumentation and university research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 381-390, August.
    71. Balconi, Margherita & Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco, 2004. "Networks of inventors and the role of academia: an exploration of Italian patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 127-145, January.
    72. Bijedić, Teita & Schröder, Christian & Werner, Arndt & Chen, Xiangyu, 2023. "How do working conditions, network relationships, and institutional support offers effect entrepreneurial intentions of German university scientists?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    73. Mowery, David C., 2010. "Military R&D and Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1219-1256, Elsevier.
    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. Bastian Krieger & Malte Prüfer & Linus Strecke, 2024. "Public procurement can hinder innovation," Working Papers of Department of Management, Strategy and Innovation, Leuven 739379, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Management, Strategy and Innovation, Leuven.

    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. Sofia Patsali, 2021. "University Procurement-led Innovation," GREDEG Working Papers 2021-13, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    2. Bianchini, Stefano & Llerena, Patrick & Patsali, Sofia, 2019. "Demand-pull innovation in science: Empirical evidence from a research university’s suppliers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(S).
    3. Sofia Patsali, 2019. "Opening the black box of university-suppliers' co-invention: some field study evidence," Working Papers of BETA 2019-46, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    4. Charlotta Dahlborg & Danielle Lewensohn & Rickard Danell & Carl Johan Sundberg, 2017. "To invent and let others innovate: a framework of academic patent transfer modes," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 538-563, June.
    5. Perkmann, Markus & King, Zella & Pavelin, Stephen, 2011. "Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on university engagement with industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 539-552, May.
    6. Larsen, Maria Theresa, 2011. "The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 6-19, February.
    7. Ani Gerbin & Mateja Drnovsek, 2016. "Determinants and public policy implications of academic-industry knowledge transfer in life sciences: a review and a conceptual framework," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(5), pages 979-1076, October.
    8. Victoria Galan-Muros & Todd Davey, 2019. "The UBC ecosystem: putting together a comprehensive framework for university-business cooperation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1311-1346, August.
    9. Annelore Huyghe & Mirjam Knockaert & Evila Piva & Mike Wright, 2016. "Are researchers deliberately bypassing the technology transfer office? An analysis of TTO awareness," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 589-607, October.
    10. Christian Sandström & Karl Wennberg & Martin W. Wallin & Yulia Zherlygina, 2018. "Public policy for academic entrepreneurship initiatives: a review and critical discussion," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 1232-1256, October.
    11. Foray, Dominique & Lissoni, Francesco, 2010. "University Research and Public–Private Interaction," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 275-314, Elsevier.
    12. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Jofre-Bonet, Mireia & Lawson, Cornelia, 2015. "The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1160-1175.
    13. O’Kane, Conor, 2018. "Technology transfer executives' backwards integration: An examination of interactions between university technology transfer executives and principal investigators," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 76, pages 64-77.
    14. Brantnell, Anders & Baraldi, Enrico, 2022. "Understanding the roles and involvement of technology transfer offices in the commercialization of university research," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    15. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    16. Leten, Bart & Landoni, Paolo & Van Looy, Bart, 2014. "Science or graduates: How do firms benefit from the proximity of universities?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1398-1412.
    17. Berna Beyhan & Derya Findik, 2018. "Student and graduate entrepreneurship: ambidextrous universities create more nascent entrepreneurs," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 1346-1374, October.
    18. Van Looy, Bart & Landoni, Paolo & Callaert, Julie & van Pottelsberghe, Bruno & Sapsalis, Eleftherios & Debackere, Koenraad, 2011. "Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents and trade-offs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 553-564, May.
    19. van Burg, Elco & Du, Jingshu & Kers, Jannigje Gerdien, 2021. "When do academics patent outside their university? An in-depth case study," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    20. repec:wip:wpaper:4 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Alessandra Scandura, 2019. "The role of scientific and market knowledge in the inventive process: evidence from a survey of industrial inventors," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1029-1069, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Public procurement; Public research; Scientific equipment; Technological change; Search; Knowledge transmission;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D22 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Empirical Analysis
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • H57 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Procurement
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:techno:v:130:y:2024:i:c:s0166497223002122. 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.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01664972 .

    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.